Preamble

The House met at hall-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the South African ambassador; and what subjects he expects to discuss with him.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the South African Government about the situation in that country.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have no present plans for an early meeting with the South African ambassador. But we maintain regular contact with the South African authorities, both here and via Her Majesty's ambassador, on a wide range of issues.

Miss Lestor: Will the Secretary of State accept that it is time that further representations were made about the Sharpeville Six? The court has now stated that the Sharpeville Six were convicted on the basis, not that they had any direct connection with the deceased, but that they were in the vicinity when the crime was committed. The implications of that are pretty appalling. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is time to ask the Prime Minister, given the special relationship that she says she has with President Botha, to make representations on the Sharpeville Six as a matter of urgency?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will realise that there is a specific question on this topic on the Order Paper a little later. It is right that we have followed the case closely and with concern. Through the German presidency of the Community, on behalf of the 12 members, we appealed for clemency for the Sharpeville Six on humanitarian grounds on 4 December. On 18 December we gave our support to a statement issued on behalf of the United Nations Security Council urging the South African Government to commute the death sentences on the Six. Since then, we have directly reiterated our concern to the South African Government.

Mr. Canavan: Given the appeals for clemency submitted by the United Nations Security Council and the

EEC, which have been supported by hon. Members, Church organisations and anti-apartheid groups in South Africa, will the Secretary of State please urge the Prime Minister to intervene directly with President Botha to save the lives of these six young people, who seem to have been wrongly convicted?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have seen the early-day motion relating to the subject that the hon. Gentleman raises. The representations that we have made direct to the South African Government, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, through the United Nations and in concert with the European Community are what we judge to be most likely to have the desired effect.

Mr. Rhodes James: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the South African ambassador, will he remind him that his Government are committed to the independence of Namibia, and that some of us are becoming impatient and angry at their refusal to honour that commitment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend knows, we are also committed to the independence of Namibia, by United Nations resolution 435. We consider that it is a matter that should be put in hand urgently, and we have supported the negotiations currently being undertaken by the United States on an intermediary basis to bring it about. We shall continue to press in that direction.

Mr. Forth: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received representations from the South African Government about the so-called Birmingham Six? If he has not, does he think that we should all learn the lesson that it is high time we stayed out of each other's internal judicial affairs? If we did, the world would he a better place for it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend must understand that there is a difference between the structure of countries such as ours, which are wholly democratic and subject to a universally available rule of law, and the position that prevails not just in South Africa but in other countries, where there is not complete democracy and a large part of a community is excluded from institutions on the ground of skin colour, which gives rise to a situation that has potentially wider implications. The two structures are in no way comparable.

Mr. Caborn: Have there been any discussions with any other Governments, specifically the South African Government, on setting up a regional conference on security in southern Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do riot recollect there being any such thing.

Mr. Alexander: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the high commissioner, will he raise the question of the apparently slow progress towards the consolidation of Bophuthatswana? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that until further progress is made it will be difficult for other countries to recognise Bophuthatswana's independence?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Bophuthatswana's fragmentary nature is only one reason why no country thought it right to recognise its independence. That country is financially dependent on South Africa. The very existence of


Bophuthatswana is a consequence of apartheid, and I think that that is the principal reason why recognition has not been forthcoming.

Mr. Anderson: The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his colleagues frequently boast about our increased aid commitment to Mozambique, yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that much of the value of our investment there — especially in infrastructure projects—is destroyed by South African-backed terrorist organisations—Renamo, or MNR as it is known in Mozambique. What representations has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made to the South African ambassador here or to the South African Government about the effect on our aid efforts in Mozambique of the South African destabilisation policies? Will he give a commitment that the Government, directly or indirectly, will not meet the MNR representative, Mr. Alfonso Dhlakama, who is due to come to this country this month, having been invited by an organisation that includes many Conservative Members, and that the Government will in no way give any form of recognition to the MNR or to Savimbi's Unita?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our policy toward Unita remains unchanged. There is no question of our recognising such an organisation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Dhlakama intends to visit Britain. On the more substantial point underlying the hon. Gentleman's question, of course we condemn cross-border violations in either direction. We have in particular urged the South Africans to exercise restraint. Time and again we have warned and urged the South Africans not to indulge in destabilising activity of the kind that concerns the hon. Gentleman.

Gaza Strip

Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider taking a joint diplomatic initiative with the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and Israel to try to reduce tension in Gaza; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Arab-Israel conflict and the situation in Gaza have figured prominently in our recent discussions with Egyptian and Israeli leaders. We also remain in close touch with other Governments concerned. We are ready to play a full part in efforts to reduce tension and to achieve a lasting settlement.

Mr. Madel: As America is now preoccupied with the presidential election campaign, and as the position in Gaza should not just drift along, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Egypt and Israel should meet at the highest level to try to make the Camp David accords work in relation to Gaza and, if successful, move on to negotiations on the West Bank?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certain that the search for progress in the peace process should not be set to one side on the ground of elections of one kind or another anywhere. We attach importance to the possibility of cooperation with the Government of Egypt. I had long talks with the President and Foreign Minister during my visit in the autumn. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had useful discussions with the President and Foreign Minister at the end of last month. The best basis on which to carry

the peace process forward remains on the footing of two principles—the right of Israel and other states in the area to a secure existence, and the Palestinian right to self-determination. We think that the best way of carrying that forward is by means of the international conference, which is now supported by many people, including President Mubarak.

Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with what the Secretary of State has just said about the future in general, but does he not agree that the situation in Gaza is immediate? Has he given any thought to the proposal that Gaza might in some way be administered by the United Nations in the short term? If so, has he discussed that with the Israelis or the Egyptians?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree that what has understandably intensified world concern about the Arab-Israel dispute is the position not only in Gaza but elsewhere in the occupied territories. There can be no doubt that Israel should withdraw, as part of a comprehensive peace settlement, from the territories occupied in 1967, and that, meanwhile, she should administer the occupation of those territories in compliance with international law and human rights standards.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend stress in any initiative the enormous damage that this is doing to the state of Israel, not least by increasing awareness in the United States of the fact that Israel is an occupying power in other people's territory? Will he seek to involve the United States in any initiative in which he is able to assist?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I very much appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend. We deplore violence from any quarter in this situation, which is so fraught with conflict. We are seriously concerned about the current unrest, which has been particularly evident in Gaza. It illustrates the dangers of leaving the conflict unresolved, the urgency of the search for a peaceful settlement—and the urgency of those objectives from Israel's point of view, too. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the longer the situation continues, and the longer one finds Israeli occupation forces failing to handle disturbances in a fashion compatible with her obligations, the sharper will be the attention that is focused on the situation. We want Israel to be established within secure boundaries as a state which is not itself threatened by violence. The people of Israel want to achieve that, too. So, in their own interests, they need to address themselves to the situation of which my hon. Friend has complained.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, in the meantime, there is a need for something to be done to ensure that Israel complies with the Geneva conventions that relate to an occupying power's role in such a situation? How did our representative vote when those resolutions came before the United Nations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need for effective action, so far as that is possible, in relation to non-compliance with international obligations in these territories. That is why we supported United Nations resolutions Nos. 605, 607, and 608, and the most recent one, introduced this week, by voting in support of them. Indeed, we played a prominent part in drafting this week's resolution. However, that is not all that needs to be done, but it is a


mark of international concern. It is important also to do what can be done to help conditions in the territories by aid and access for trade. We have actively supported all those things.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the conditions in the camps in Gaza are no worse than those in the camps in the Lebanon and Jordan? Does he also agree that it is high time that the Arab world, which encouraged the creation of those camps 40 years ago, used some of its oil-based wealth to solve the problem that it encouraged in the first place?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend is anxious to be sure that the other side of the matter is represented and taken into account in the House. As I said in my original answer, it is important to recognise that we should take account not only of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination but of the right of Israel to a secure existence within secure borders. It is right also to accept that there have been some improvements since Israeli administration in some areas. However, the point does not stop there. There is a stark contrast between the conditions of those who live in refugee camps and, for example, the Israeli settlers, who live in illegal occupation of the land alongside them. The presence of Israel in such territories is contrary to international law, as resolution after resolution of the United Nations has recognised. It is on that basis that I repeat the objectives that have been common ground to all searches for peace. Above all, it is in Israel's interest to hasten forward the process of looking for a peaceful settlement along those lines.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the Prime Minister meant by her statement yesterday? She said that the Government favour
an international conference as a framework conference within which bilateral negotiations should take place between King Hussein of Jordan and Israel."—[Official Report, 2 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 852.]
Although Jordan's participation is essential and indispensable, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no conference can possibly succeed—nor will any such conference be acceptable to other parties —without the participation of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and, above all, the Palestinians, whose plight and rights will be the central core of any such conference? Therefore, will the Foreign Secretary repudiate what the Prime Minister said? If Britain is so unclear about her policy, overcoming the obstructiveness of Mr. Shamir and of the United States Government will be impossible.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman should not draw such dramatic conclusions from the point that he has made. The United Kingdom, together with the Twelve and most of the international community, have come out firmly in favour of an international conference. We believe that that is the right framework within which negotiations can take place. The precise method of setting that scene, of course, remains for discussion, but it is quite plain that the Palestinians and several other people will have to be participants in the discussion. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman should not conclude that that is a prescription for some narrower definition of the conference that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has vigorously and energetically supported in forum after forum around the world.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned settlements. Does he agree that the Israeli Government have plans for further settlements and that to build settlements in such densely populated areas as Gaza is a great affront to Palestinian refugees? What action will the Government take to try to prevent the creation of further settlements at present?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right. If the existing settlements are an infringement of international law, by the same token the extension of such settlements is a still further infringement. More than that, they cannot help to advance or consolidate the cause of peace. They seek to entrench the occupation of illegally occupied territory. They act as a challenge to violence in the opposite direction, which itself poses a threat to the state and people of Israel. It is because of my passionate belief in the right of Israel and its people to exist as a state within secure borders that I urge the people of Israel and their leaders to recognise the need to turn from the path of the entrenchment of illegality and to embark upon the process of negotiation that is so important.

Hana Siniora

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about the harassment of the Palestinian journalist Hana Siniora by the Israeli security forces; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): Mr. Siniora has not asked for our intervention, and thus we have no reason to take up his specific case, but we shall continue to follow it closely.

Mr. Galloway: Although I am grateful for the wise and courageous stance that Her Majesty's Government are taking on the issue and for many statements on the subject that have been made today and of late, does the Minister agree that, more than anything else, the Israelis and Palestinians now need less war, war, and more jaw, jaw? Dialogue is impossible unless there is local leadership that has the confidence of the political leadership — the Palestine Liberation Organisation — and the local population, and is accceptable in the broader international community. Dialogue will be impossible if leaders are systematically harassed, arrested, sometimes tortured and, as increasingly of late, deported.

Mr. Mellor: I was glad, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was glad, that Mr. Siniora and his colleague were able to go to the United States and talk direct to Mr. Shultz. When I was in the United States on Monday and Tuesday, I was also glad to note that the United States is re-engaged in the peace process and that further action may be anticipated from that quarter. Plainly, as the hon. Gentleman says, this is a time for serious talking to draw in the Palestinian people. Where that leaves the PLO is in the hands of the PLO members themselves. They have the opportunity to legitimate themselves if they are prepared to accept unequivocally resolutions 242 and 338 to renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. If they were to do that, they could be full participants in a process in future. However, I am afraid that the contrary is also the case.

Mr. Soames: In the case of Hana Siniora and thousands of other Palestinians, what explanation can my hon. and


learned Friend offer to the House of the unspeakable inhumanities inflicted by the Israeli Government on the Palestinians? Does he agree that the Israelis, of all people, should really understand about the suffering of minorities?

Mr. Mellor: I said my piece about conditions in the occupied territories when I was there. I believe that a reevaluation is necessary, because it was clear to me from my recent visit to the United States that the shock waves of what is happening in the occupied territories are resounding around the civilised world. Some change in tactics in the occupied territories will have to come about. The status quo in the eyes of an increasing number of sensible, mainstream people is not an option. Maintaining security in the territories at the point of a gun is not realistic and has become an increasingly inhumane process.

South Africa

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards ending apartheid in South Africa.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Our policies are those most likely to be effective in bringing an end to apartheid. We recognise that fundamental change is very slow, but acknowledge that it must be stimulated from within South Africa.

Mr. Grocott: The Minister will understand that that was no answer to the question. When will she also understand that the Government's self-proclaimed policy of hoping to end apartheid in South Africa is a fraud and a sham? When will she begin to understand that since the declaration of the state of emergency 30,000 people have been detained in South Africa, that the use of torture is widespread and that children receive the most appalling treatment? Should not the Government accept that the horrors of apartheid are increasing daily and that their abject failure to oppose it brings shame to our country throughout the world?

Mrs. Chalker: First, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. Secondly, our repeated objection to the state of detention and the way people and particularly children are treated in South Africa is in no doubt so far as the South African Government are concerned. They are in absolutely no doubt about that. As we take positive measures in southern Africa in general, at the same time we will take up all the representations that he and many other hon. Members wish us to take up. However, the point of the hon. Gentleman's question was how we can speedily bring an end to apartheid. The only way in which we can do that is to encourage dialogue within South Africa among all the groups in South Africa and by voicing our total objection to detention without trial and the other inhumane methods that the South African Government are using against their black people.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend note that many hon. Members welcome the Government's resistance to the introduction of economic sanctions against South Africa? Will she note in particular that those sanctions are unproductive? For example, Barclays

National bank did more than any other company in South Africa to bring on black management, which is the way to the future for a multiracial South Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. The point is that, as my hon. Friend said, sanctions are beginning to deny black people in work in South Africa the opportunities that were afforded prior to disinvestment. There is growing recognition within South Africa, and within the black community there, that they are being deprived of opportunities by the detachment of some companies — and indeed, some politicians across the world—from that active and concerned interest in the future of black people in South Africa. Anything that we can do to provide positive help to the black population in South Africa should be encouraged, and I hope that it will be.

Mr. Bernie Grant: In view of the communiqué from the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa—I have a copy and I am sure that the Minister will also have a copy—will the Minister assure the House that the British Government will do nothing to sabotage the efforts of that committee?

Mrs. Chalker: There is no way in which the British Government will attempt to undermine positive work to bring an end to apartheid. I repeat that I do not believe that a study of the impact of existing sanctions and proposals for tightening those sanctions will help one iota. The restrictive measures that we implement scrupulously are a political signal, but there is widespread recognition within the Commonwealth of the value of a positive contribution. There is growing awareness and concern at the negativism of the sanctions policy that some advocate.

Sir Jim Spicer: In making any assessment on behalf of the Government, will my right hon. Friend make quite certain that she has private discussions with black trade union leaders in South Africa, who will tell her that they are in favour of sanctions only if their own trade unions are excluded from the effect of such sanctions?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend and I seek to have as many discussions as we can with black South Africans, when they are here or when we meet them in other places, to bring about the dialogue that is so urgently needed. I understand exactly what my hon. Friend said, but whoever we meet we have to balance the pressures that those people may face within South Africa and ask why they make those comments. It is understandable that in calling for sanctions some people wish to be excluded. Such a policy simply would not work, any more than punitive and negative sanctions will help to bring about the end of apartheid that we seek.

Mr. Kaufman: Why did the Government boycott the meeting in Lusaka of the Commonwealth committee on southern Africa? This is the first time that Britain has declined to participate in an important Commonwealth committee. Could they not have sent the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), so that he could have spoken out against the way in which South Africa is oppressing its black population, in the way that he spoke out in Gaza last month? Will the Government at any rate agree to participate in the intensified arms embargo decided upon in Lusaka, or does the Government's opposition to South African apartheid amount to hypocritical words rather than positive action?

Mrs. Chalker: There is no question of a boycott of the meeting of eight Commonwealth Foreign Ministers. At the Vancouver summit the British Government agreed with the vast majority of policies. However, we did say that we saw no point in joining that particular committee, which is a further sub-group, but we shall continue to work with all Commonwealth countries in the constructive ways that we identified in Vancouver— in particular with aid to black South Africans and to the neighbouring countries. There is no precise information about what has been proposed by those eight Ministers who met in Lusaka. We shall, of course, consider carefully any ideas that are put forward. We continue to follow carefully the proceedings of the committee in Lusaka. We have enforced the arms embargo, and we shall continue rigorously to do so. As to sending my hon. and learned Friend there, it is easier for those who have to concentrate on one area of the world so to do. The hon. Gentleman need have no doubt that I shall be just as forthright and equally as tough on the South African Government as I was in December when I made quite clear to the Deputy Foreign Minister in Pretoria exactly what we thought of South African Government policies.

Middle East

Mr. Walters: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of recent events on the West Bank and in Gaza, he will indicate what steps Her Majesty's Government propose in order to speed up the middle east peace process.

Mr. Mellor: We shall continue to work for an international conference under United Nations auspices as the framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.

Mr. Walters: My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. and learned Friend have both rightly condemned Israeli repression on the West Bank and in Gaza. They have also condemned Mr. Rabin's repellent speech advocating beatings, power and might as the guidelines of Israeli policy in the area. What next? Surely this must be the time to put greater steam behind a peace initiative and to make it clear that the Palestinians must be entitled to choose their own representatives at any talks that follow.

Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial that the concern be translated into effective action. We believe that action should proceed in two ways. First, immediate palliative action should consist, as the Secretary-General's report to the United Nations following Mr. Goulding's visit made clear, of enhancing the work of the United Nations relief organisation and continuing the pressure on the Israeli Government to mitigate the aspects of occupation that cause the gravest hardship. Those palliatives will not be enough. The second strand has to be to work for a resumption of the peace process. That should come from all who acknowledge that the status quo cannot stand. That is why I welcome very much, as my right hon. and learned Friend does, the resumption of interest in the United States in a peace process. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Murphy, is to visit the region following the visit earlier of the special United States emissary to Jordan. We obviously hope that that initiative will bear fruit, because clearly the United States has the prime influence on the Israelis.

Mr. Janner: Has the Minister seen the admission made this morning by Racal-Tacticom, and reported in the Daily Telegraph, that it has been supplying goods to the PLO? Does he agree with the Downing street statement this week that sections of the PLO have engaged in "appalling acts of terrorism"? In those circumstances, how can it be right that no licence is required, apparently, for sending to the PLO telecommunications equipment which presumably will not be used to convey affectionate greetings?

Mr. Mellor: I cannot add to the answer that the hon. and learned Gentleman received to a similar question that he addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who answered the private notice question yesterday. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows our position on the PLO. He knows that part of our call for a sensible settlement in the middle east is that the PLO should legitimate itself in the ways that I have already set out in answer to an earlier question.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Will my hon. and learned Friend and the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that if Europe does nothing, the American Administration invariably end up doing what the Israeli Government and the Zionist pressure group tell them to do? Will he therefore assure the House that the so-called peace process will not be left to the American Government, but that Europe will play its proper part to bring it about?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. Plainly there is a role for others. That role is taken seriously within Europe. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend will on Monday attend a meeting of European Foreign Ministers who will be meeting King Hussein. I dare say that European interests and the European initiative will be made clear then.

Mr. Winnick: As one who strenuously defended the Israelis' position in 1967—I believe that I was right to do so, unlike the right hon. Member for Chesham arid Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) — I am appalled arid horrified at the response of Israeli authorities in the occupied territories, for which there can be absolutely no justification. Would it not be right for Israelis to recognise that the Palestinians also have a right to their homeland? In 40 years they have not forgotten Palestine, any more than the Jewish people, during 2,000 years of exile and persecution, forgot for one moment their historic homeland.

Mr. Mellor: That is a very brave statement, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for it. Many of us who took one view in 1967 have perhaps come to look at matters in a slightly different light today. It is plainly dangerous that the present situation should continue. The scenes that vie see nightly on our television screens are damaging to the reputation of Israel. Whatever might be the problems of the past—there have been great faults on the Arab side in relation to sustained aggression against Israel—if the people of these territories are to have any future, and if there is to be a sustained peace in the region, it can come about only because neighbours learn to co-exist rather than rely on the point of a gun to achieve lasting security. That is why we must continue to assert that middle east peace can be based only on all states in the region agreeing that each state has a right to exist behind secure boundaries and that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination. That is the only basis on which a lasting peace will be achieved.

Chinese Foreign Minister

Mr. Grylls: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in the House on 20 January, I look forward to welcoming Mr. Wu Xuegian on an official visit to Britain in the spring.

Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will warmly welcome the scholarship programme, which will bring some 2,000 Chinese students to Britain, because they will presumably play their part in the modernisation of China when they return and possibly improve contacts and ties between British business and China, which would be extremely beneficial to both countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is encouraging that there are 2,000 Chinese students in Britain today compared with 1,600 last year. Some 800 of the 2,000 receive funding from the Government. That itself is almost a doubling of what applied last year. It will help us to sustain the growth in exports to China, which have increased from £180 million in 1983 to £536 million in 1986. It will be part of an expanding trade relationship which will be fruitful in other ways as well.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the vile trade in endangered species between China and Hong Kong? The centres in China appear to be the Dongmen market in Canton and Shenzhen, which forms a border between China and Hong Kong. The animals are used for food—they are eaten in restaurants in Hong Kong. Will the Foreign Secretary make the strongest representations to the Chinese Foreign Minister when they meet so that such trade can be stamped out once and for all?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am well aware of the hon. Member's interest in this important subject. It is a matter on which Hong Kong and China have strict laws presently in force. We have drawn to the attention of the Chinese authorities concerns such as those expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We have asked Hong Kong to review its efforts to see whether enforcement can be made more effective. It is already considering proposals to strengthen its arrangements.

Mr. Adley: I welcome the close relationship that has been established between the two Governments and between my right hon. and learned Friend and Mr. Wu. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best interests of the people of Hong Kong are undoubtedly sustained by the closest possible relationship being maintained between the two Governments? Regarding the clamour from some quarters in Hong Kong for early direct elections, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is his understanding of the Chinese Government's view that it makes sense to put the Basic Law in place before embarking on constitutional adventures?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reminder of the importance of good relations between the United Kingdom and China for the future of Hong Kong. That goes without saying. It is also right to acknowledge that the People's Republic of China has taken a more cautious view of the prospect of direct elections than has been taken in other places. Elections will

be part of the constitution of the special administrative region in due course. It is on that basis that the topic was discussed in the House a week or two ago. On most issues, there was a large measure of agreement on the importance of moving to direct elections. The timing of the introduction of direct elections was the topic on which opinions still seemed to be divided.

Mr. Foulkes: When the Foreign Secretary meets his Chinese counterpart, will he raise the question of the continuation of the then existing legislative bodies in Hong Kong through the period of the handover? In particular, will he seek clarification of a statement made last week by Li Hou, the deputy director of the Hong Kong Office and secretary general of the Basic Law drafting committee, to the effect that the Chinese Government would not just be making a symbolic gesture in exercising its sovereignty after the handover? Many people in Hong Kong fear that this means that a new Legislative Council will be appointed on 1 July 1997. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this would not be in accordance with the smooth transition called for in the joint declaration? Does he intend to make a statement to the House after the publication of the White Paper on democracy in Hong Kong next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the last point, I must point out that the House has only recently had an opportunity to debate this subject quite fully. The White Paper will be published shortly, and we shall have to see whether there is a case for a separate statement. I would have thought that it would be more likely for the House to want to have an opportunity to study the White Paper closely first. As to the statement attributed to Mr. Li Hou, I do not think that I should be required to answer for each interpretation that the hon. Gentleman chooses to put on every observation made by Chinese spokesmen. The commitment of both states in the joint declaration is to the establishment of democratic arrangements in the terms set out. The commitment is also to the highest degree of continuity through this period of changeover in 1997. That is the centrally important feature.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity of his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister to explore China's relations with other countries in the sensitive area around it, and in particular the question whether Chinese relations with South Korea can be put on a more positive footing, given the evidence which appears to show that North Korea has been practising institutionalised terrorism?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take the importance of the point referred to in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. We have condemned the part played by the North Korean Government in the recent destruction of a South Korean aircraft. I have no doubt that, in the course of my discussion of international relations with the Chinese Foreign Minister, relations within the peninsular of Korea will be one of the topics on which we shall touch.

UN Under-Secretary General

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken in the United Nations to protest at the treatment of the United Nations Under-Secretary General by the Israeli Government during his visit to the occupied territories in January; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: None, Sir. This is a matter for the United Nations Secretary General. We called on all parties to facilitate Mr. Goulding's visit, which was mandated by United Nations Security Council resolution 605.

Mr. Cohen: Was not the Under Secretary General of the United Nations treated very badly by the Israeli authorities during his visit to Israel, and did not the army go into the camps and disrupt them during his visit? Does the Minister agree with Mr. Goulding, who said that the Palestinians have every right to be angry about the conditions in which they are forced to live and that a political solution is needed? Will the Government work towards that solution under the auspices of the United Nations and start that by opening up a dialogue with the PLO?

Mr. Mellor: I certainly agree with that comment of Mr. Goulding's, and I was able to tell him that personally when I saw him in New York on Friday. The key point about Mr. Goulding's visit is to try to make progress on the report that the Secretary General has issued following on it. The report makes two points clear. First, there is a need for immediate alleviation of the problems in Gaza by way of the palliative measures set out in the report — enhancing the relief organisation's work and mitigating the more oppressive aspects of the occupation. Secondly, as I have already said, there is a need to get the peace process moving again.

Mr. Lawrence: Would it not help our credibility with Israel in these matters, and help to solve the humanitarian problems in Gaza, if the Government stopped signing annually the United Nations resolution that calls specifically upon the state of Israel not to rehouse the refugees in Gaza in decent accommodation?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have great respect, knows that it is not as simple as that. He knows that we vote as we do because of the manner in which it is sought to enforce rehousing—an element of compulsion is involved — and because afterwards adequate dwellings that are better than other dwellings in which people who cannot afford to move out of the camps live are then bulldozed down by the occupying forces. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot help but regard the argument sometimes used by the Israeli authorities to justify their position as rather flimsy.

Mr. Faulds: In view of the Israeli Government's arrogant disregard of international conventions and of the appalling conduct of Israeli troops, will the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend — and my right hon. and learned Friend — the Foreign Secretary, that he should raise with his EEC colleagues the need to consider the suspension, or indeed, abrogation, of EEC trade and financial agreements with Israel?

Mr. Mellor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue is to be considered again by the European Foreign Ministers at their meeting with King Hussein next week and we must await the outcome of that.
On the European Community arrangements, it is obviously desirable, so far as possible, to keep political considerations out of purely trading issues. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. and learned Friend took the lead in proposing that there should be direct access to the European Community for goods from

the occupied territories, because that is a practical way of expressing our desire to see conditions in the occupied territories improve. It wilt also be known that the Commission, while negotiating the mandate for Israeli access to the Common Market, required from the Israeli authorities some undertakings on the manner in which they would carry out those access arrangements. Therefore, although we have not gone anything like all the way with the hon. Gentleman, I hope he is satisfied that there is an element of what he asks in what we are doing.

Japan

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Japan.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I believe that my visit helped to strengthen the increasingly active and productive relationship between Britain and Japan. Foreign Minister Uno and I discussed a wide range of international issues, many of which we shall need to tackle together. I urged him and other Japanese Ministers to reinforce their efforts to reduce Japan's surplus. I also pressed our case on outstanding bilateral issues.

Mr. Hayward: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's comments and the speech in which he pressed the Japanese to open their country to inward investment. Can he now tell us the position on the application made by Cable and Wireless for membership of a consortium to compete with KDD?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the Cable and Wireless question, I understand that the arrangements now in prospect meet the requirements that we have been pressing with that company and on its behalf for some time. When I was in Japan I emphasised that the United Kingdom will continue to press vigorously for the redress of any grievances in trading conditions. It is right to say that the Japanese gave me much assurance of their determination to respond effectively to such representations.

Mr. Fraser: Was the Foreign Secretary able to raise with the Japanese the wholesale killing of whales in the Antarctic in breach of international agreements? Were the assurances that they gave him any more convincing than those given about the balance of trade?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our interest in the effectiveness of the international whaling convention is a matter about which representations have been made to the Japanese Government.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be happy to know that the Scotch Whisky Bill completed its Committee stage this morning. Can he tell the House what has happened about the GATT council's decision that Japan should have a common tariff for spirits—for both imports and local manufacture—and how that will help Scotch? Have we made any progress?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of the Bill to which he referred. I know of his intense interest in this subject over many years. It is right to say that I do not share his general interest in the topic to quite the same extent.
I have been concerned about Japan in that context. Access for Scotch whisky was at the top of my agenda when I first went there as Minister for Trade and


Consumer Affairs in 1973. It has taken a long time. With the support of the European Community we had to take the matter to the GATT panel, which reported in favour of our case. In December the Japanese accepted those findings and announced that they intended to reform their liquor tax in the right direction to give effect to those findings. I impressed upon them that we expect the recommendation to be implemented in full and emphasised that we shall look carefully at the detailed proposals and at the changes that should come into effect without further delay.

Gibraltar

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the agreement with Spain over Gibraltar.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The agreement was an important step' forward and it is now for the people of Gibraltar to decide when the agreement on Gibraltar airport can enter into force. Meanwhile, we are considering with the Spanish Government the practical implementation of the parallel arrangements at the land frontier and the Gibraltar-Algeciras ferry service.

Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the agreement represents a good deal for the people of Gibraltar, not only as a boost to their economy, but for tourism and financial services? So far as the airport is concerned, will my right hon. and learned Friend use his good offices to ensure that the people of Gibraltar see the advantage of the agreement and see it implemented as soon as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the agreement. It offers the prospect of air links with the rest of Europe, the prospect of attracting more visitors and of an expansion in the tourist and financial services there, and can be a major boost to the economy. It will also bring advantages to the United Kingdom and to other European countries. I emphasise that the next steps depend on the willingness of the people of Gibraltar to make their democratic choice on the airport agreement. We have made it clear that we do not intend to impose it on them against their wishes. However, I very much hope that they will see the advantages to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Sir Peter Blaker: I reinforce the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). Is it not evident that it is in the interest of the development of Gibraltar's economy that the agreement, so far as it relates to the airport, should be brought into effect as soon as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is absolutely clear. It is a matter on which I have no doubt that the democratic processes of Gibraltar will reflect carefully in the light of the observations made by my hon. Friends.

Bermuda

Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Bermuda.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Her Majesty's Government exercise constitutional responsibility for the dependent territory of Bermuda, and relations between the United Kingdom and Bermuda continue to be excellent.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that Bermuda is a community with good race relations, no litter, no unemployment, no illiteracy and no income tax. Does he think that we could learn something from Bermuda?

Mr. Eggar: I am glad that my hon. Friend enjoyed his brief visit to Bermuda so much and that he came back with such a favourable impression of that territory. Indeed, Bermuda has a lot to be proud of, but my hon. Friend will no doubt have noted, as he has told the House, that Bermuda's prosperity is not based only on its ample sunshine but on a thriving private sector and low taxation.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that Bermuda plays a major part in Caribbean regional matters — [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not in the Caribbean."] I know where Bermuda is. I have visited there, and not on a free trip.
As Bermuda plays an important part in regional activities and has, along with many other countries, consistently expressed concern about the United States' policy in the region and towards Central America, will the Minister take this opportunity of likewise expressing his concern at the murderous policies of the Reagan Administration towards Central America and the Caribbean?

Mr. Eggar: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration at not getting in his normal propaganda on behalf of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. However, I am afraid that I cannot follow him along the lines that he has described.

Haiti

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the current political unrest in Haiti; and what risks it poses to British citizens in that country.

Mr. Eggar: After a prolonged period of civil unrest M. Leslie Manigat was elected President of Haiti on 17 January. The country is now calm. There is no threat at present to the United Kingdom community. We continue to keep the situation under review.

Mr. Bowis: Although my hon. Friend may say that the country is calm, there has been something of a breakdown of law and order there. Is he aware that people in this country are extremely concerned that our citizens in Haiti should be protected, because the present circumstances in that country are not of their own making?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our overriding priority in all consular matters is that we provide an efficient service for British citizens who are in genuine distress or danger through no fault of their own. I assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of the potential risks to the some 50 British citizens in Haiti.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a new question of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with the matter afterwards. It is not a new procedure.

Unification Church

The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Tom Sackville: To ask the Attorney-General what progress there has been in relation to the charity proceedings now pending in his name in connection with the Unification Church; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I will now answer question No. 89.
Proceedings were instituted in the High Court by my predecessor in December 1984 in connection with two trusts associated with the Unification Church. Those trusts were respectively known as the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity and the Sun Myung Moon Foundation. Prominent among the objects of each is the promotion of the principles and teachings of Sun Myung Moon, described as the founder and world leader of the Unification Church.
In 1984 each of those trusts was, and each still remains, entered in the statutory register of charities maintained by the Charity Commissioners. That register properly comprises only those trusts whose objects are truly and exclusively charitable in English law.
The proceedings in the High Court were brought by my predecessor in the exercise on behalf of the Crown of its function as the protector of charity. He appealed against the refusal of the Charity Commissioners to accede to his request that they remove the association and the foundation from the register of charities. His grounds for that request had been that the trusts failed in particular respects to meet the requirements of English law relating to charity.
Whatever view may he taken of its tenets, the Unification Church must, as a matter of law, be regarded as a religion. In English law there is a strong presumption that any trust for the advancement of any religion, without distinction, is charitable unless the contrary is proved by evidence admissible in court proceedings. Teachings that are in their very essence contrary to morality would be an example. It is for any challenger to bring forward such evidence: the burden is on him.
The evidence available to my predecessor in 1984 properly led him, with the advice of leading counsel, to conclude that there were sufficient prospects of an appeal succeeding. That evidence included testimony of witnesses called for the successful defendants in a libel action against Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. tried in 1981. In addition, there were statements by former members of the Unification Church that had been offered when it came generally known that charity proceedings in the High Court were under consideration.
Since the proceedings were begun, the Treasury Solicitor has gone to immense lengths in seeking out additional evidence from those who have been associated with the Unification Church. Some further potential witnesses have approached him on their own initiative. Further statements have been taken from other persons, who had been closely involved in comparatively recent activities of the Unification Church in this country, and who had wanted to assist in the challenge to charitable status of the trusts.
The most careful analysis has now been made of the totality of the evidence available to me, set against the legal presumption to which I have referred. Some of it, when tested in the light of all the material now available, has proved to be insufficiently reliable. The remainder, when seen in the overall context, is shown to be of insufficient weight to rebut the legal presumption. I have now been advised by leading counsel that it is most unlikely that, if the appeal proceeded to trial, I should be able to dislodge that strong legal presumption of charitable status. After the most careful consideration, I agree with that advice.
The trial is due to start on 12 April. It would last an estimated three to six months and occasion great expense. In these circumstances, I have decided to seek the court's leave to discontinue these proceedings, and the Treasury Solicitor has this morning so informed the defendants.

Mr. Sackville: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his answer will come as a grave disappointment to many people, particularly to those families who have been the victims of the so-called Moonies, Scientologists, and other cults and who have experienced the ruthless methods and unacceptable behaviour of those cults! Does he agree that his answer should highlight the fact that it is time we stopped giving charitable status to such vile organisations, and that the fact that we do is an affront to natural justice and an insult to those whose lives haze been ruined and whose families have been torn apart by them?

The Attorney-General: I am naturally aware that my answer will come as a disappointment to many people. However, I hope that I have accurately and fully set out the basis on which I have felt obliged to accept the advice that I have been given. My answer is given exclusively in the exercise on behalf of the Crown of its role as the protector of charity. It is one whose content is dictated as a matter of law. It has no bearing upon the attitude of the Government towards any cult, and the question of any reform of the law on charity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree with the views expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who said:
the sinister activities of some of the groups must be exposed by every means possible and most vigorously discouraged." —[Official Report, 24 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 708.]
Does the Attorney-General agree that it is regrettable that, nearly four years later, our charity law is wholly inadequate to deal with the Moonies? Will he now set about reforming the charity law quickly before more people are reduced to misery and destruction by the activities of the Moonies and others like them?

The Attorney-General: As I have already said, the reform of charity law is not for me but is in the first instance for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The evidence available to my predecessor in 1984 justified his decision at that time to initiate the appeal and to make the allegations that he put forward against the Unification Church. Material has come to light since 1984 as a result of the continuing inquiries of the Treasury Solicitor, the nature of which I have already described to the House. It is in the light of the totality of the evidence now available, seen against the strong legal presumption which I have mentioned, that dictates my decision.

Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement is outrageous for large numbers of us? Will he please tell the House whether his decision owes anything to the murder in Devon in December of Sonia Martin, who was to be a key witness in the case, and to the intimidation of other people prepared to help?

The Attorney-General: I have seen no evidence that witnesses or potential witnesses have been intimidated. I am aware that a witness who had sworn an affidavit in support of my appeal, Sonia Martin, was found dead in Devon last December. I understand that the inquest into the cause of her death presently stands adjourned and will be resumed on a date to be fixed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the parliamentary precedent for the Attorney-General coming to the House and answering orally a written question? If we are to have this, would it not have been better for him to turn his attention to written question 119 and to tell us whether the head of the security services, the Prime Minister, knew about what Mr. Stalker was writing and the shoot-to-kill policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, but there are precedents for this.

The Attorney-General: It seemed to me that it was a convenient and, I understand, a precedented means, well within the rules of order of the House, to tell the House orally and permit oral questions about a matter that could properly have been dealt with by written question.

Mr. Churchill: Although I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's decision in this matter, will the Government urgently consider amendments to charity law to ensure that such undersirable organisations as the Unification Church do not have charitable status? Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that, over the years, several hon. Members have been approached with offers of huge value in terms of free travel to foreign places?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Name them.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman says, "Name them." I was one of those invited, but I declined the invitation.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend put other hon. Members on their guard against accepting hospitality from such organisations?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks. I undertake to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the great and genuine concern felt about this organisation and about the reform of charity law.
As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, the House will have heard what he had to say.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does this mean that the Government have been forced to give in to the Moonies as a result of a shortage of money in the litigation fund because it has all been spent pursuing "Spycatcher"? If so, would it not be worth while for the Attorney-General to examine the huge fees demanded by lawyers, which cause the expenses of these court cases, or does he feel sufficiently objective to be able to conduct such an investigation?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman expects an affirmative answer to the first part of his question. Anybody holding my present office has a duty to assess the likelihood of success for any proceedings in train. In the case of the "Spycatcher" litigation, the advice that I have received and accepted warrants the continuation of proceedings both here and overseas.
In the case of my predecessor's appeal against the decision of the Charity Commissioners, I have explained to the House as clearly as possible the reasons that have led leading counsel to advise me, and I accept the advice that there are not sufficient prospects of that appeal succeeding. That is why I have taken this step.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever the legal position—I do not challenge his interpretation—there is absolutely nothing in the activities of this obnoxious and appalling group of people that qualifies them for the title "charitable" in the accepted sense of that word?

The Attorney-General: I well understand the anxiety that is genuinely and widely felt about the Unification Church. Equally, I have to apply the law of this country in respect of charitable status. Whether that law deserves review or reform is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not for me.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can we be assured that the Moonies have not got at the Treasury Solicitor or the Attorney-General himself, in view of this disappointing statement? Will the Attorney-General tell the House why he thought it necessary to answer in this way, by making a statement from the Dispatch Box? Could not some other device have been used?

The Attorney-General: I hoped that the wide concern expressed in this House over a number of years about the Unification Church would be its own justification for my coming to the Dispatch Box. I took the view that the matter did not merit a full-blown statement, of which many people believe there are too many. On the other hand, I felt that it was only fair to the House to give people, including the hon. Gentleman, the opportunity to ask a question about it.
As to my having been got at, I have been subjected to many more ferocious and effective assaults than anything that the Unification Church might feel disposed to launch against me. As for the Treasury Solicitor, I think that he is quite immune to any such assault.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our inability to proceed against the Moonies will cause widespread dismay, not least among legitimate charities, whose work is of such great benefit? Is he further aware that the circumstances that he described underline the urgent need for the review which the Home Office is carrying out following the publication last year of the Woodfield report, to include consideration of strengthening the Charity Commissioners' powers to prevent organisations whose objectives and tactics are clearly not regarded as charitable by the majority of British people from continuing to enjoy charitable status? If the law is preventing us from taking action against the Moonies, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it should be reviewed?

The Attorney-General: I understand, as I have made clear and readily repeat, that there will be much disappointment about the statement that I have made today. Equally, it will be understood that it would not be right for me to continue with proceedings that would lead to a three to six-month trial at enormous expense in the face of the strong advice that I have received from highly experienced leading counsel.
As to the reform of charity law, I understand what my hon. Friend has said. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. John Hunt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that the decision that he has announced should in no way be seen as providing carte blanche to the Unification Church to continue its exploitation of the young and vulnerable in this country? Will he make it quite clear that its activities are still being closely watched by many hon. Members in the House?

The Attorney-General: The action that I thought it right to take constitutes no more than the withdrawal of the appeal initiated by my predecessor against the refusal of the Charity Commissioners to remove these two trusts from the register of charities. Neither I nor anyone else can give carte blanche to any organisation. Certainly no carte blanche has been given to the Unification Church. I am certain that the remainder of my hon. Friend's question will be noted.

Mr. John Fraser: On any reasonable view, is not the announcement that the Attorney-General has had to make extraordinary, particularly as it comes at a time when the Government are campaigning for tax-free gifts to charities from people's payrolls?
Is the Attorney-General aware that many deserving causes find it difficult to get through the rather slow and cumbrous procedures of the Charity Commission. It is difficult to understand their predicament, given the Moonie immunity that has been announced.
Is it not the essence of the law that a religious charity should direct itself to the benefit of the public and not engage in positive harm or Right-wing political activity, which has taken in a few Conservative Members?
Given the extraordinary width of the definition of a religious charity implied in the Attorney-General's answer, will the Government announce that they will set up an immediate and urgent review charity law to put an end to the rampant abuse that has been practised by the Unification Church and the farcical nature of the decision that the Attorney-General has been forced to announce? Nothing less than an immediate review will satisfy the House.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been obliged or forced to make a statement. Of course I have not. I chose to do so for the reasons that I have explained. However, I well note the hon. Gentleman's concern about the principles of law that govern charitable status in this country.
The proceedings which my predecessor began made certain specific allegations against the Unification Church, which the evidence then available to him entirely justified. If those allegations could be substantiated, they would, in my view and that of my predecessor, have warranted his appeal being allowed. As I have endeavoured to explain, the totality of evidence now available to me is insufficient to enable me to substantiate any of those particular allegations to the extent needed to rebut the strong legal presumption of charitable status that English law gives to any religion.
It is not for me to express either regret or any other response. It is my duty to the House to announce the conclusion that I have felt obliged to reach. I note, as all will do, what the hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his question and will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Crown Suppliers

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Crown Suppliers.
The Crown Suppliers are a self-financing business within the Department of the Environment. They sell furniture, and other equipment and services to the public sector. They have operated as a Government trading fund since 1976, and under the title of the Crown Suppliers since 1984.
As direct suppliers to Government Departments, the Crown Suppliers have achieved considerable success in the design and procurement of their own-brand furniture, the procurement and supply of a wide range of equipment, and the provision of fuel and transport. I have, however, considered the role and status of the Crown Suppliers in the light of untying Departments from the compulsory use of purchasing agencies.
I have had the benefit of two recent reports by consultants and have discussed a summary of those reports with staff representatives. It is clear that the Crown Suppliers must reduce their overheads substantially to reflect new working practices and purchasing policies in Government Departments.
Many of the activities of the Crown Suppliers are, however, of a commercial nature, and there is little doubt that they could be carried out more efficiently in the private sector. The question therefore is whether the Crown Suppliers should be given full freedom to compete in both public and private sectors, which would entail transfer to the private sector.
I am convinced that privatisation provides the brightest future for the Crown Suppliers, as well as a continued source of competitive supplies for the public sector. It will also allow the Crown Suppliers to have access to a wider market. It is the Government's view that the private sector should be invited to bid for those of the Crown Suppliers' businesses which can be undertaken on a normal commercial basis. Some activities will have to remain in the public sector, for security or other reasons.
The Government intend therefore to seek further advice from a financial institution on the best method of effecting the sale of the Crown Suppliers. The businesses available for sale will include the provision of furniture, furnishings and other equipment on an untied basis for the public sector, and the transport hire business. In evaluating offers received, I shall pay particular attention to proposals for the involvement of the staff in the success of the enterprise.
I also intend to bring forward legislation to effect the transfer at an early opportunity.

Mr. Roland Boyes: The Minister's statement on the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers is scandalous. It reflects the Government's narrow political dogma at its worst. It not only is an enormous threat to the jobs of those 1,486 people employed by the Crown Suppliers but will inevitably lead to bankruptcies and redundancies in many small, specialised firms throughout the United Kingdom, many in areas of high unemployment.
Has the Minister given the trade unions any assurance that the staff will be given the choice to remain in the Civil

Service if they wish, even if this means a certain amount of regrading and retraining? Will the Minister confirm that in the past three years the Government have commissioned four reviews into the operation of the Crown Suppliers, at great cost to the taxpayer? Two of them — the Turton report of 1985 and the central unit of purchasing review 1986 — acknowledged that privatisation of the Crown Suppliers was feasible but would not be in the public interest. The two most recent reviews, undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand/Samuel Montagu and Dewi Jones, were not even required to consider the public interest in their brief—it is obviously no longer a consideration for the Government.
Does the Minister agree that the Crown Suppliers exist for two reasons? First, they exist to supply the Government and the public sector with the most economic furnishing, fuel and transport. All relevant Government statistical indices demonstrate that the Crown Suppliers fulfil that task to consistent standards of excellence. Secondly, they exist to increase the competitiveness and profitability of British industry. Ninety-six per cent. of their £240 million turnover comes from British firms, one third of which have 100 workers or fewer, many of them in sheltered workshops supporting an important social service.
The Crown Suppliers have pioneered numerous designs in furnishing, including flame-retardant mattresses and materials that are sold all over the world. The CBI has applauded the Crown Suppliers' priority sourcing scheme, which guarantees business and encourages investment in plant and machinery in designated development areas.
In the private sector, British Telecom, British Gas, British Rail and most recently British Aerospace all choose to use the Crown Suppliers because they judge them to offer best value in terms of cost, quality and reliability of service.
Finally, will the Minister explain precisely what parts of the Crown Suppliers he intends to privatise? Is it not ironic that, as a result of this privatisation, it is the taxpayer, whom the Government pray in aid for many of their policies, who will lose most? Clearly, the proper place for the Crown Suppliers is in the public sector.

Mr. Chope: That was a typically negative response from the Opposition. I am surprised that the Opposition do not favour the plan to extend the opportunities of the Crown Suppliers so that they can compete in a wider market. The Crown Suppliers' present share of the contract furniture and furnishings market is 8 to 9 per cent. I look forward to the time when they will be able to go out and expand their involvement in the private market.
As far as the transfer of staff is concerned, staff will be affected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1987, and terms and conditions broadly comparable with those prevailing in their present employment will be available for them in the private sector.
It is the Government's policy to free Departments to make their own purchasing decisions using their own resources and to use public sector purchasing power in the widest interests of British industry. It is not a mandatory "Buy British Only" policy, which is illegal under the treaty of Rome and the GATT. It is right that the Crown Suppliers should use firms registered in the United Kingdom, because evaluation of competitive offers shows that to be the best value for money. The same principles


would apply whether the Crown Suppliers were in the public or the private sector. The same principles would also apply for the use of small firms and firms in development agencies.
No change is proposed in relation to the Government priority suppliers' purchasing arrangements. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the status quo is one on which the Crown Suppliers can rest. The more enlightened members of staff of the Crown Suppliers realise that they must change with the times.

Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware that his decision will be warmly welcomed by Conservative Members and by many employees in the Crown Suppliers, who will welcome the freedom that it will give them to compete where they cannot now compete — in the private sector? Far from resulting in less employment in the Crown Suppliers or less work for the small firms that supply them, this decision could result in more employment and more work for those firms.

Mr. Chope: I appreciate my hon. Friend's typically positive response. I know that, when he had responsibility in government for the Crown Suppliers, he took a keen interest in their work, and it is a tremendous endorsement of today's announcement that my hon. Friend thinks that it is in the best interest of the Crown Suppliers.

Mr. Frank Field: When the hon. Gentleman considers the tenders for this business, will he seek an undertaking that there will be no further job losses on Merseyside?

Mr. Chope: I cannot give guarantees about job losses on Merseyside. As the hon. Gentleman may know, one of the reports that we commissioned referred to the possibility of reducing the overheads of the Crown Suppliers within the Government sector. One of the proposals put forward was that one of the two procurement offices — there are two: one in Liverpool and the other in London—should be closed. I can understand that staff in Liverpool would be extremely concerned if there were no such proposal as I have put to the House today. If either the London or the Liverpool office had to be closed, they certainly might fear that there would be job losses in Liverpool. I look forward to better employment opportunities in the Crown Suppliers, and that includes employment in Liverpool.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend accept that, generally, the decision must be a good step for the Government? What percentage of the Crown Suppliers' business is with overseas Governments and other Commonwealth nations, who have looked to such business because it was backed by the United Kingdom Government? Will he make it quite clear that whoever takes over the Crown Suppliers will operate with the same integrity as that which can be expected from Her Majesty's Government? Will he further confirm that opportunities will still be open on the security aspects, which the Government will contain, from which Commonwealth countries will be able to benefit if they so require?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend referred to overseas and Commonwealth countries. At present, the Crown Suppliers have little overseas business. I hope that they will get more overseas business as a result of privatisation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Are there not some inconsistencies in the Government's policy?

On the one hand, they say that the Crown Suppliers have done a good job, that 85 per cent. of their costs are better than in any other sector, and that 60 per cent. of their work is already contracted by the private sector, but, on the other hand, they say that it should be privatised. The Treasury says that it is not in the public interest for them to be privatised, yet the Department of the Environment says that it is.
What report has the Minister received that states that the proposal will have a cost benefit for the taxpayer? Is not the reality that no report comes to that conclusion? The Minister's political view, rather than any objective criterion, is prevailing. There will not only be job losses in places such as mine in south London, but increases in other Government Departments. Is not the whole matter a triumph of dogma over logic? Should not the Minister take it away and re-examine the proposal?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The decision has the full support o f the Government and the enthusiastic support of the Treasury. One matter that has concerned the Treasury is the level of the Crown Suppliers' overheads. If the Crown Suppliers stay within the public sector, action will have to be taken to deal with their overheads. The alternative of opening wider outside markets is preferable.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend accept that his decision will be warmly welcomed, not least by the furniture industry? Having listened to the eulogy given by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), the Crown Suppliers would seem to have little going for them. They should not be afraid of private industry, and the furniture industry in particular, which will welcome the decision and the additional competition that it will provide — all to the benefit of the Government and the people.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What activities will remain in the public sector?

Mr. Chope: Certainly the activities that have security implications—and there may be one or two beyond that—will remain in the public sector.

Mr. James Couchman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed? Has he considered the possibility of offering the Crown Suppliers on a management buy-out basis to people who have an esprit de corps, some of whom are my constituents and have written to me? Will he regard it as a forerunner of doing exactly the same to the Property Services Agency?

Mr. Chope: There has been an expression of interest by some members of the management in purchasing part of the Crown Suppliers. Their applications will certainly be considered along with the others. On the wider issue of the Property Services Agency, as my hon. Friend knows, we are moving to commercial accounts, with a view to a trading fund in the future.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Minister be more specific about what will be left in the public sector? Will he spell it out? Does he say that he will hand the Crown Suppliers to the furniture industry, with its recent health and safety record? How will the national interest be served by doing that? Will such things as


Ministers' cars be included? Will we see them driving Toyotas? What protection will there be for contracts, 95 per cent. of which are in this country at the moment and one third of which are placed with small firms, which the Government are supposed to uphold? Will that percentage remain in the future? Will the Minister be honest with the House and say that the matter bears the stamp of his political prejudice and hatred of the public sector, however successful it may be?

Mr. Chope: Certainly the decision bears the stamp of the Government's commitment to privatisation and to the benefits of a competitive environment. I have already answered points about effects on Government purchasing policy. There is no reason to suppose that the proportion of British goods will be reduced. Indeed, I look forward to the time when, instead of the proportion being 95 per cent., 100 per cent. of goods are British-made. I visited the "Better Made in Britain" exhibition, which was designed to try to encourage British firms to make products that are not yet available on the home market.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a substantial Crown Suppliers facility in my constituency. Although I accept the challenge of privatisation, I ask him to be more specific about the time scale of the sale. As he knows, for many months, staff have been extremely worried about their future. They are highly skilled men and women, who deserve more recognition than merely being told that we are calling in more consultants to advise on the time scale. My hon. Friend knows full well my concern about the way in which leaks about the decision came out of the Department over a prolonged period. Parliament should be the first to be told.

Mr. Chope: On the last point, I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern 100 per cent. I appreciate his expression of interest in the matter. In Hastings, there are about 1,200 employees of the Property Services Agency, just over 100 of whom are employed by the Crown Suppliers. The timetable will depend upon the legislative programme. As knowledge about the announcement is becoming known, certain private firms are coming forward to express an interest in purchase.

Mr. Tony Blair: Does the Minister recall the critical part that was played by the Crown Suppliers in changing the Government's mind about furniture foam and getting them to introduce tough new regulations? Is he aware that the main company behind the Government's original flawed proposals on furniture foam, Hillsdown Holdings, is likely to be one of the main bidders for the Crown Suppliers? Therefore, will he deal specifically with my question? Is one of the aspects of the Crown Suppliers that is to be left in the public sector its safety role in providing objective advice to the Government to ensure that the public interest is not sacrificed for the commercial interests of the privatised company?

Mr. Chope: The Department of Trade and Industry deals with the safety role. It seeks the views of organisations in the public and private sectors. That has happened in the case of furniture foam. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it would be advantageous for the Crown Suppliers to stay in the public

sector. If they had been in the private sector and had been consulted about their views on furniture foam, they would have been able to publicise their announcement when they made it in September last year.

Mr. Ian Gow: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's excellent, if overdue, statement, will he persevere in doing good? Will he shortly bring forward his proposals for the total privatisation of the Property Services Agency?

Mr. Chope: I heard what my hon. Friend said. As I have already said, we are moving to commercial accounts in the Property Services Agency, with a view to establishing a trading fund.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Having accepted that the Crown Suppliers are a successful public sector enterprise, why do the Government inhibit or prevent them from competing with the private sector, then use that inhibition as a justification for selling them off? Is it because the savings for taxpayers and ratepayers and the profits that are being made for the public are required to be handed over to the Tory party's friends in the private sector?

Mr. Chope: Not at all. The Government take the view that commercial enterprises are better run in the private sector. The essence of the Crown Suppliers' activities is commercial.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. Friend give a rather more convincing reply to the questions that were asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) about the Property Services Agency? Surely the logic that has quite rightly drawn him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The statement is about the Crown Suppliers.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The logic that has drawn my hon. Friend to the right decision about the Crown Suppliers applies with equal force to the Property Services Agency. Surely there is no argument of principle or practice for retaining the PSA in the public sector.

Mr. Chope: There is a distinction between the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency. The Crown Suppliers have been a trading fund for many years, but the PSA does not yet have proper commerical accounts, let alone a trading fund.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that legislation will be introduced. Will hon. Members ensure that their questions relate only to the Crown Suppliers?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister recall that on 9 December he answered a question from me about the Crown Suppliers by saying that he was considering the Coopers and Lybrand and the Dewi Jones reports? Does he accept that the main part of the Dewi Jones report stated that priority should be given to the introduction of improved working practices? What are his answers to the Dewi Jones conclusions? Is it true, as we read in the press, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is extremely sceptical about this privatisation on a falling stock market? What will happen to expert units such as those that look after Hampton Court and the Palace of Westminster? Will they be broken up and their expertise scattered?

Mr. Chope: It is not true that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was against this or had


reservations about it. Indeed, this matter was not his departmental responsibility. That proves that the purported leaks to the press suggesting that my right hon. Friend was against the privatisation were up the tree. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the specialist work at Hampton Court and the Palace of Westminster. We shall consider whether that work should be part of the privatisation package.

Mr. Dalyell: And what about the Dewi Jones report?

Mr. Derek Conway: Does my hon. Friend recall that, every time a Minister has come to the House to announce a privatisation measure, there have been whingeing voices, yet every time the measure has received the approval of Parliament it has been an enormous success? My hon. Friend's proposal today will be no less a success. The proposal will be welcomed not least in the less highly populated urban areas, such as Shrewsbury, where many local traders have not been able to come to terms with the preferred trading status of the organisation. Therefore, my hon. Friend's statement this afternoon will be very welcome in the more rural parts of the country.

Mr. Chope: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The recent results of the National Freight Corporation are a further reminder of the success of privatisation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As it has already been stated and accepted that the Crown Suppliers buy 95 per cent. British products, what guarantees will the Minister write into the legislation to ensure that that continues in future? Can he be absolutely sure that overseas predators will not take a leaf out of the book of the Kuwaiti Investment Office and seek to take full advantage of the opportunities when privatisation arises? Will he also guarantee that no Tory Member of Parliament, either in the Government or outside, will be given the opportunity to become a director of any of the privatised companies that may emerge?

Mr. Chope: It is not possible for members of the Government to hold directorships in companies. All the interest that has so far been expressed in purchasing the Crown Suppliers has come from British firms.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend agree that, in delivering services to the public, the Government must always have regard to the fact that they have no funds other than those provided by the taxpayer? Therefore, in their capacity as trustees of the taxpayers' money, the Government must consider how to deliver those services most cost-effectively. If those services can be delivered most cost-effectively in the private sector, it must be common sense and morally right to do that.

Mr. Chope: I agree 100 per cent. That is why the Government's policy is to allow Departments to make their own purchasing decisions using their own resources, so that they can shop around. Firms will win Government business only if they are competitive.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Minister guarantee that, if the Crown Suppliers are to be privatised, they will not follow the same path as Coventry Climax, which has suffered an 80 per cent. loss of jobs in five years? Will he guarantee that by saying that he will monitor what happens to the company after privatisation? The Department of Trade and Industry has always refused

to do that. Making a last attempt, will he explain precisely which elements of the Crown Suppliers are supposed to remain in public ownership for security reasons? Is he not aware which elements are to remain, or is it a secret?

Mr. Chope: It is not a secret. Those aspects of the Crown Suppliers' activities that have security implications will remain—

Mr. Nellist: What are they?

Mr. Chope: I can name one—the secure car service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is appropriate that that should stay in the public sector. I am afraid that I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's other questions, he asked so many.

Mr. Nellist: What about monitoring and job losses?

Mr. Chope: With regard to job losses, I should have thought that Opposition Members would look more positively at the proposal. Sussessful privatisations have often involved an expansion of the labour force. I hope that the Crown Suppliers will be equally successful.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister accept that this is unacceptable? He has come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement, but he has not answered specific questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who asked him to tell us exactly what services and functions will remain with the Crown Suppliers. He should give us a list. It would appear that ministerial cars are involved. At the moment, it costs the taxpayer £2·5 million a year to provide him and his right hon. Friends with cars so that they can waltz around London and not experience the real traffic problems that the rest of us have to put up with.

Mr. Chope: I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying if he is arguing for the privatisation of the ministerial car service.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend make sure that, by inadvertence, he does not achieve something different from what he wishes? Would he in any such regulations or instructions use the word "United Kingdom" rather than "British" so that he does not exclude products from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend has made a very telling point, and I agree with him.

Mr. Boyes: We must insist that the Minister answers the questions posed by myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South that there are one or two bits beyond security. Will he define exactly what they are? Will he assure us that he intends to publish the Coopers and Lybrand and Dewi Jones reports?

Mr. Chope: Summaries of the Dewi Jones and Coopers and Lybrand reports have been prepared and copies have been placed in the Library. We do not propose to publish them in full because they contain commercially confidential information. Certainly some aspects of the Crown Suppliers activities will not be up for sale.

Mr. Tony Banks: What are they?

Mr. Chope: The details will become apparent after we have made progress and engaged a financial consultant to look at the matter in detail.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point, of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order in their proper place.

Anglo-Irish Relations

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The conclusions reached at the meeting between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Ministers of the Irish Government yesterday.
It is regrettable that I have to make this application as a matter of urgency and importance. The Government should have made a statement. They have been dodging it since we were promised an early statement on these matters 10 days ago by the Attorney-General.
The matter is urgent and important because this Government and the Irish Government have referred to the constraints and strains that have now been placed on Anglo-Irish relationships and the difficulties that have been raised about confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The level of public confidence in the RUC is now as low as it was at the time of bloody Sunday and the hunger strikes. While it is true for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to say that he was not in office while the shoot-to-kill policy took place, he was in office when Stalker was obstructed in his inquiries into that policy.
We are entitled to have in the House the list of areas of concern and proposals for improvement that the Irish Government are said to have given to the Secretary of State for discussion by the Cabinet. We are entitled to know why the Irish Government felt it necessary to go to the Cabinet. Was it because they did not trust the Secretary of State? Was it because the Prime Minister had authorised the Attorney-General's statement a week ago last Monday? All that is happening against a background of a Greek chorus of the regular Stalker revelations that seem to contradict every item that the Attorney-General told the House about last Monday.
The replies to the Stalker revelations from the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the RUC have been deafening in their silence. The dogs have not been barking. They are hoping that the matter will go away. We are determined that it shall not go away. The House has a right to discuss such matters urgently in Government time, and that is what should be done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conclusions reached at the meeting between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Ministers of the Irish Government yesterday.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. He knows that when considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 I must have regard for the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

NHS (Industrial Action)

Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
Today's industrial action in the Health Service
Quite candidly, there can be few applications under Standing Order No. 20 as clear-cut as this one. I have three minutes to convince you, Mr. Speaker, to make a simple decision. Which is more urgent and important—today's debate on the Licensing Bill, which will allow pubs to open for a couple of hours longer, or the reasons why tens of thousands of health workers in London, Coventry and throughout the country are on strike today?
The background to this escalating dispute is the massive £1,500 million of cumulative underfunding of the Health Service. The Chancellor would prefer that money to be used for tax cuts to the rich instead of providing guarantees of heart operations for the 100 bairns in the west midlands who are desperately waiting for them. It could be used for providing equipment that is now bought through raffles and jumble sales, or to give health workers a wage on which they can live, instead of the contemptuous 3 per cent. that the Government believe they can get away with, or to reopen wards and hospitals that have been closed by a Cabinet that has no idea about the NHS. Even the Secretary of State for Social Services went into a private hospital at £1,000 a week.
The Secretary of State this morning attended a conference in the Connaught rooms but paused for a few seconds inside the opulent entrance hall sharply to criticise the nurses in front of television cameras. However, he refused my request to meet nurses in uniform from Guy's

hospital who were waiting outside and say the same things to their faces that he was prepared to say about them to the media.
In contrast, Opposition Members have spent most of the past eight hours visiting hospitals and talking to health workers. It is clear that it will not be long before the anger of working people boils over. The Daily Telegraph today reveals that 79 per cent. of voters support today's strike. When asked about the Prime Minister's statement that nurses were deliberately hitting at patients, 67 per cent. of Tory voters sided with the nurses and not with the Prime Minister. Workers throughout the country know that petitions, lobbies and arguments have never impressed the Cabinet. The only answer is action. In growing numbers, they realise that it is not the responsibility of health workers to take action to defend our NHS. It is the responsibility of all workers. That is why there are increasing calls on the TUC to turn Budget day into a one-day general strike to defend the Health Service.
If the House does not debate this crucial issue but instead spends the rest of the afternoon discussing pub opening hours, Parliament will be seen to be increasingly irrelevant and the support for national industrial action will grow. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, Soul h-East (Mr. Nellist) seeks to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
today's industrial action in the National Health service.
Again, I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member has said, but I must have regard to the criteria of the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Crown Suppliers

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of the Crown Suppliers.
My interest in this matter did not begin this afternoon; it is of long standing. On 9 December 1987, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he had to privatise the Crown Suppliers; and if he would make a statement.
The Minister replied:
I am considering various possibilities for the future of the Crown Suppliers, following two reports by consultants, one of which concerned the feasibility of privatisation.
It was within your hearing, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon that the Minister was asked questions upon the Coopers and Lybrand report. Those questions were not answered. He was then asked questions about the Dewi Jones report, which were not answered. I do not know whether those reports are in the Library, but I asked for all information and I received a precis saying that Dewi Jones' general conclusion was
that parts of TCS could be privatised, but that priority should be given to the introduction of a number of improved working practices.
Parliament needs to know a great deal more about that.
The Minister's answer continued:
I have recently received detailed and comprehensive comments from representatives of the staff of the Crown Suppliers, and I do not propose to announce a decision until these have been fully considered." —[Official Report, 9 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 176.]

This afternoon we heard nothing about the full consideration of the views of the staff. I understand that 1,900 jobs will disappear and that there will be a loss of expert advice; 500 new jobs may be created, but that is far from clear.
Part of the trouble is that the Crown Suppliers dared to criticise the DTI and angered the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. They have also said that small businesses may be harmed. The press reports may not be far wrong about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. However, the Minister must explain why that privatisation is to go ahead on a falling stock market and the consequences to the taxpayer.
There are urgent questions that are local to the House about the future expertise in the House of Commons. We are all concerned about matters that affect us, but there is an even greater problem in regard to the reconstruction of furniture in Hampton Court. It is an absolute traduction of the House of Commons for the Minister to make such a statement and hope to get away with it. The sooner that we have a debate on the issue the better.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the future of the Crown Suppliers.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. I was in the Chair when the Minister made his statement. I regret that I cannot rule that this matter is appropriate to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member will have opportunities, and certainly when the Bill is debated, to bring his points to the Floor of the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we are not allowed to challenge your judgment on individual matters relating to Standing Order No. 20. All hon. Members accept that. We have spent 20 minutes discussing the Moonies on a day when, for the first time in history, nurses in Britain have been driven by desperation to industrial action. It is possible, with great regret, to challenge the Speaker on a substantive motion. I say that because I am probably the only Member of the House who has moved a motion of censure on the Speaker. That was in relation to the refusal of an emergency debate that I sought to raise on the bombing of Oman about 30 years ago.
I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the criteria of urgency. When the National Health Service is so poorly funded that nurses are out on strike, it must take precedence over the Moonies and the Licensing Bill. I ask you to reconsider the criteria.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the points of order are concerned with the same subject, I will take them together.

Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely on a day when the two main issues are the day of action in the National Health Service and a report from the Government on the Anglo-Irish discussions, it is astonishing that the Government should use an unusual parliamentary procedure to initiate a long discussion on the Moonies and to have a half-baked statement from a half-briefed Minister on the flogging off of the Crown Suppliers. Is it not also astonishing that it was two of my hon. Friends who had to make applications under Standing Order No. 20 for debates on the National Health Service and on the Anglo-Irish talks?
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review your decision. Surely the selection of the question to facilitate the statement on the Moonies was done only with your permission. If that was not the case, the Select Committee on Procedure should consider the matter because surely it gives enormous power to the Executive if it can choose an obscure written question on which to make a major statement on a day when applications from the Opposition show that the overriding preoccupation of hon. Members is with the day of action in the National Health Service and with the Anglo-Irish talks.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reconsider the applications that were put to you. If it is to be relevant to the public, the House must reflect the preoccupations and concerns of the people. Today those preoccupations are not with the Moonies, and they are certainly not with the flogging off of the Crown Suppliers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with this matter straight away. When it was put to me that a written question should be answered in the House, the procedure was new to me. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that "Erskine May", on page 332, states:
on a request by a Minister being made a question upon the paper for written answer has been answered orally at half-past three.
It is a rare occurrence, but it has happened before.
I have to have regard always—I said this yesterday and I do reflect every day with great care— to the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20: that is to say, whether to give precedence over the Orders of the Day for that day or for the succeeding day for an emergency debate. I also have to have regard to the other opportunities that exist—that is specifically laid down in the Standing Order—and not to give my reasons for so doing. It is a difficult judgment to make every day.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to investigate the circulation of the Order Paper and of Hansard? Last week, during an important Adjournment debate on the Health Service, not one Member of the Opposition was present. Therefore, their anger today must be totally synthetic.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), Mr. Speaker. An enormous number of people throughout the country are expressing reasonable and legitimate concerns about the Health Service. I think that you would be the first to wish that Parliament was able — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you last week?"]— to reflect their anger and that Members of Parliament were able to represent their constituents. My point of order is that this afternoon a large number of Health Service workers, mainly nurses, went to Trafalgar square from the hospitals where they had been working or picketing. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] It is an important matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let me hear the point of order.

Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am raising an important matter. It is a question of the access of people to Parliament to lobby Members of Parliament. When the group of nurses sought to leave Trafalgar square and walk, not in procession but as normal citizens, down Whitehall to Parliament, in order to enter the building and lobby Members of Parliament, they were prevented from doing so by a cordon of police across the road. So the nurses were unable to move freely to Parliament to lobby their elected representatives. I understand that some of the nurses have now managed to reach the House and will be lobbying Members of Parliament. Presumably Conservative Members will wish to hear their points of view since they are not prepared to go to the hospitals to listen to them. [Interruption.]

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister has a nerve to sit there pontificating.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) must contain himself.

Mr. Corbyn: Mr. Speaker, will you—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. How can I hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is saying if the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, who is sitting next to him, persists in shouting into the same microphone?

Mr. Corbyn: I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that in accordance with the Sessional Orders that were passed by the House at the start of the session and of the new Parliament, the streets leading to Westminster are kept free and there is no let or hindrance to any person who


wishes to come to the House to lobby a Member of Parliament. It is clear that the police action was in breach of the Sessional Orders. I should be grateful if you would confirm that the Sessional Orders were approved, and communicate that fact to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police so that he can ensure that they are carried out.

Mr. Speaker: The Sessional Orders are concerned with the rights of Members of Parliament to come to this place. I will look into the matter that the hon. Member has raised. I had no notification of a lobby of the House today. I normally get such notification on the day when a lobby is taking place.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that there has been a great deal of obstruction and intimidation of hon. Members in getting to the House today to attend Parliament? Hon. Members have been obstructed by a flag-waving group of militants and Socialist Workers party supporters, with very few nurses among them, which prevented some of us from attending Question Time and part of the proceedings of the House today.
Will you please send a message to the police controlling that crowd that they should permit the access of hon. Members of Parliament to the House freely so that, having been elected, we can carry out our democratic job of trying to ensure through democratic means that the nurses and the National Health Service are properly looked after by Parliament? Does the attempt to disrupt Parliament by force not prove that the nurses are being cynically and politically exploited by the Opposition and by their supporting unions, COHSE and NUPE, and that this has nothing to do with the care of patients?

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that I will look into the question of any obstruction that has been caused, and certainly of obstruction caused to hon. Members. That would be contrary to the Sessional Order.

Mr. Wells: May I bring you the details?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You called my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to order. I am not saying that you did so wrongly, but I should like to put it to you that my hon. Friend made his interjection because of the loud-mouthed comments from the hon. Lady who is supposed to be a Minister and who has consistently tried to intimidate Opposition Members and who, incidentally, is an absolute disgrace to the city of Liverpool.

Mr. Speaker: One of the problems that I face in the Chamber is that I hear what goes on through a microphone positioned above the hon. Member who is speaking, which is channelled to an amplifier in the wings of the Chair. I am afraid that I did not hear anything else.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), Mr. Speaker. You will recall that in 1976 the Labour Government announced cuts of 30 per cent. in the hospital building programme. Over five years, the pay of nurses decreased in real terms.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be an argument rather than a point of order.

Mr. Bennett: Did the right hon. Member for Chesterfield ever make an application under Standing Order No. 20 during those five years?

Mr. Speaker: I was not the Speaker at the time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: You have quite properly said, Mr. Speaker, that you are guided by criteria that have been used by your predecessors. We did a little research a short while ago on what were Standing Order No. 9 applications — now Standing Order No. 20 applications—to see when they were granted. We found that, in the run-up to the so-called winter of discontent in 1978–79, when there was a Labour Government, many applications for debates under Standing Order No. 9 were made.
I do not know whether the criteria for accepting such debates were marginally different or whether Mr. Speaker looked at them differently, but our research in the Library shows that five applications were made by Tory Members—many of them to do with the NHS—and they were granted. I remember sitting over there, where Conservative Members now sit, watching them make their applications.
All I am asking is whether you will have a look at the criteria used then and see whether they have changed and whether the climate now is just as important, and to consider the environment outside this place as compared with our discussions about the Moonies and pub opening hours. Will you consider whether it is important to discuss what is after all, an historic event—thousands of nurses and other health workers going out on strike? Will you consider whether that meets the criteria for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20?

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look up what happened, but the criteria have not changed. I have a clear memory of what happened at that time—it was a very different situation.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are looking at the criteria, will you examine the criteria by which the Opposition are able to use Supply days and the criteria by which they can put down censure motions? Is it not a fact that what we have witnessed today is the possible leadership bid of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as all the complaints have come from Back-Bench Labour Members? None have come from the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) has blundered onto an important aspect of the problem. Never during the time to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, which I admit was a period of crisis, did nurses come out on strike. Nevertheless, applications under Standing Order No. 9 were granted, as were private notice questions. I respectfully submit that it is important to consider what happened during that time and to compare it with what is happening now. The situation now is much worse and ought therefore to be treated in a much more considerate manner.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us—we have two major Bills to debate. I shall consider all


the points tht have been put to me. I have no doubt that the House will wish to return to this matter during Social Services questions on Tuesday.

Mr. Frank Dobson: If I may by the way respond to Conservative Members who are suggesting that I have been smoked out—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This will have to be a fairly ingenious point of order.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that it is usual for the Front Benches to speak towards the end of these exchanges. We recognise the dilemmas that you face. They have been made more acute today by the gross insensitivity of the Government who have used a fairly unused and archaic method to get the Moonies on the agenda. They have also made a statement about the Crown Suppliers on a day when, indubitably, the bulk of the British people are depressed at the thought that nurses have come out on strike for the first time in the history of that profession. That being so, my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain extremely worried and look to the support of the Chair such as the then Opposition Members received in 1978–79 in circumstances which we do not believe were any more severe than those which prevail today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can take this matter any further.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Member once.

Mr. Nellist: Not on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Member shouting across the Chamber.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time please. I shall call the three hon. Members who have been rising and then move on.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The protection of the reputation of the House is one of your prime duties. I cannot compare the 1970s with the late 1980s except to say that I was just as involved then in opposing cuts as I am now. There is one difference about today. For the first time in, I think, 800 years, St. Bartholomew's hospital nurses are on strike. I know that you will not explain why an application under Standing Order No. 20 was not acceptable or why a request for a statement could not be met, but I would like to back up the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), particularly as we can spend 20 minutes on a written answer about the Moonies and we can enjoy the company of the junior Minister for health who, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said thousands were out on strike, contradicted him, but was not prepared to get to the Dispatch Box to put those facts, as she sees them, before the House and be cross-examined on them. You, Mr. Speaker, are the only one who can judge the criteria and whether the Moonies and pub opening hours, or the hundreds of nurses outside the building and the thousands more throughout the country, count more in the public's attention.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you do not make a decision today—although today is the day on which the strike is taking place—to come back tomorrow and say whether the criteria applied in the 1970s were different from those applied in the 1980s. It looks to me—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Nellist: I shall finish on this point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not having the hon. Member pointing his finger at me.

Mr. Nellist: It looks to me as though the Government have used the Moonies and the Crown Suppliers to cover up, through you, the fact that they are not prepared to answer questions on the Health Service.

Mr. Speaker: I do not decide whether the Government use the procedure to make a statement or to answer a question at the end of Question Time. That is not a matter for me. Provided that it is in order, it is done. It is not a decision over which I have any discretion at all.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to consider the traffic implications for this building which arise from the demonstration? I have visited four hospitals in my area today. Nurses and hospital staff have had a poster made which says:
Hoot if you support the NHS and the nurses.
Car after car hooted. I can confirm that it is only the Tory Government who do not give a hoot for the NHS.
If the nurses and lobbyists come to the House with that poster, will they be allowed to show it? As an opinion poll shows that well over 90 per cent. of the British public support the NHS and the nurses in this campaign, it will be very noisy out there. May I have your assurance that there will not be a problem and that they will be allowed to show the poster?

Mr. Speaker: As long as they do so outside the Chamber.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will keep this short, and I think that it is a genuine point. Surely, when a request for a statement comes to your office, you have to give your permission for the statement to be made. Do you acquaint yourself with the contents of that statement and decide whether it is worthy of being made that day?
It does not seem to make much sense that we can have this peculiar statement, using an arcane device, to hear all about the Moonies and to have a statement about the Crown Suppliers that left more questions unanswered than it answered, when a genuine desire for a statement on grave disputes in the National Health Service does not find favour. So that we can assist you, will you tell us the criteria?

Mr. Speaker: I have discretion in regard to Government statements. If the Government say that they will make a statement, we have to accept that. Similarly, if a Minister wishes to answer a question at the end of questions, as happened today, that also is not a matter for my discretion.

Mr. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman once. I said that I would hear the three other hon. Members who had been rising. We must now go on to the ballot for notices of motions.

Mr. Heffer: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman once.

Mr. Heffer: This is an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be, but I said that I would hear the three other hon. Members who were rising. The hon. Member was not one of them. We must move on to the ballot for notices of motions.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 19 FEBRUARY

The Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Malcolm Moss
Mr. Timothy Wood
Dr. John Marek

Transplant Notification

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland to establish an effective system of identifying potential organ and tissue donors and for notifying the same to an approved organ and tissue procurement organisation; and for connected purposes.
By this Bill, I seek to bring to the attention of the House a most important problem of health provision in Britain today. There are vital areas where demand is greatly increasing and where at least part of that increase is due to the very success of those areas. At the outset, it is appropriate to mention my gratitude for advice and support eagerly offered for bringing forward the Bill. As with so many parts of health provision, there are many admirable contributions from the professionals and equally from those who make considerable efforts in a voluntary capacity.
Various names readily occur—the Kidney Research Unit for Wales Foundation, the Welsh Kidney Patient Association, Professor Salaman of the university of Wales college of medicine. Mr. Ross Taylor of the Royal Victoria infirmary of Newcastle upon Tyne, and their colleagues and Miss Esther Rantzen and the "That's Life" television programme. All their contributions deserve tribute.
Few if any of us would say that we are completely satisfied with all that is being done. None the less, in being positive, it behoves us to say that tremendous advances have been made in the National Health Service. Treatments are now possible that not so long ago were but a dream for the highest levels of medical science, let alone being countenanced by the layman, particularly by the patients who would benefit. Not least has this been true of transplant surgery, and even now I doubt whether these advances are yet as widely appreciated as they deserve to be. Surgeons transplant corneas, kidneys, livers, pancreases, hearts, lungs, hearts and lungs together and heart valves, besides bone and skin tissue.
Nor is the scale of the operations readily known. Last year, there were three lung transplants, 65 heart and lung transplants, 247 heart transplants, 200 liver transplants, 1,159 cornea transplants and 1,566 kidney transplants. Imagine the change effected, the new life after a heart transplant, the change in quality of life with no more dialysis after a kidney transplant and the restoration of sight after a cornea transplant. Perhaps we cannot easily imagine these transformations until we have had that experience or closely known someone who has undergone transplant surgery, but clearly it must make a glorious difference.
The possibility of these transplants and the awareness of those possibilities inevitably provoke their own demand. Who would not wish to have the improved quality of life, in any of its different forms? Before, there were no waiting lists for treatments that were not available or did not exist. The total of more than 3,000 transplants carried out last year is, I am afraid, not sufficient. That pace will be unlikely to make a progressive reduction in the waiting lists. A continuing increase will have to be expected.
Let me refer to the situation for kidney patients. As I have said, in 1987 there were 1,566 kidney transplants. There are now 3,485 more people waiting for the same


treatment, and this does not include any who have not registered, for whatever reason. Additionally, it can be assumed that new patients will be diagnosed as in need of dialysis. Estimates based on a rate of 50 per million project 2,500 more requiring dialysis each year and, in turn, 2,500 more each year for kidney transplants. Therefore, a repeat of last year's transplant operations would not reduce the waiting list by that number of 1,566. Instead, the number will grow from approximately 3,500 to approximately 4,500.
The same could well be true for the other types of transplant, particularly for heart and lung transplants, where the ratio of transplants performed to the respective waiting list is greater again than the ratio for kidney patients. Understandably, there is no one simple reason frustrating greater progress but, above all, it is frustrated by the shortage in the number of organs becoming available for transplant. This was brought out in the report of the DHSS working party. That report estimated that there are 4.000 brain deaths annually — a number sufficient to match the need for kidneys, the largest requirement, if only a higher proportion of those with brain death were to become donors.
The working party brought forward its recommendations providing a voluntary code of conduct for organ transplant identification. This reaffirms the criteria for brain stem deaths, defines when organs need to be removed and expects the senior doctor involved to seek permission for removal of the organs. These recommendations make no difference, in that the most important aspect—the identification of suitable organs—remains voluntary. The results show that the voluntary approach is not adequate, and there is no encouragement to think that it will yet succeed at the levels necessary.
I feel that the time has come to acknowledge the inadequacies of the concept of voluntary approach and to move to legislation. My Bill would put into effect the aims of the voluntary arrangements by making a requirement that the necessary questions about donations are asked —the vital questions that are not now being asked often enough. It does not interfere with any doctor's clinical freedom, but I suggest that it is the only way to achieve a significant increase in organ donation, ideally to a sufficiency to match the presently rising need.
I do not pretend that these are the easiest questions to ask, however much they need asking. They come at a time

of great emotion and grief. The loss of the loved one means that this can never be easy for either relative or doctor. However, that is no different from the feelings that prevail now under the voluntary arrangements. At less emotional times, almost every one of us would agree that these gifts of life represent one of the finest gestures that can be made. Extending or improving the life of another can be a great source of comfort in bereavement: the knowledge that that greatest loss can yet result in a gift of inestimable value.
What, then, is likely to be achieved? The Bill does not take an untrodden path. Essentially similar legislation is in force in the majority of states of the United States of America. Let me take the example of one state, Arizona, where the period immediately after the legislation came into force showed a threefold to fivefold increase in the number of organs identified for transplant compared with the number for the corresponding period before the legislation came into force. In the adjoining state of Nevada, there was no increase during that period. Nevada has since intoduced a transplant notification law.
A simple projection can be made to show what a threefold increase in the organs available could do for rising waiting lists. The working party report identifies that there is the potential for that increase in organ identification. The number of transplant operations needs to increase significantly. The difference that can he made to the quality of life justifies the steps that I propose. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Ray Whitney, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Eric Forth, Dr. Norman Godma n, Mr. Jeremy Hanley and Mr. Allan Rogers.

TRANSPLANT NOTIFICATION

Mr. Gwilym Jones accordingly presented a Bill to require health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland to establish an effective system of identifying potential organ and tissue donors and for notifying the same to an approved organ and tissue procurement organisation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 92].

Licensing Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not one to question your judgment—nor would any other hon. Member do so — but many people outside the House will wonder why amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and the names of many of my hon. Friends, was not included in Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. It goes to the heart of the Bill on the question of permitted hours, giving the licensee scope and discretion in deciding for which 12 hours to open between the hours of 10 am and midnight. I feel that it should have been included in the selection, or that we should be told why it is not.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon

New clause 2

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON LICENSED PREMISES TO PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN

1. — (1) Section 169 of the principal Act (offences on licensed premises in connection with the supply of intoxicating liquor to, or its consumption by, persons under eighteen) shall have effect with the following amendments.
(2) In subsection (1) (which penalises the sale of intoxicating liquor by a licensee or his servant to a person known to be under eighteen), the word "knowingly", in the first place where it occurs, shall be ommitted.
(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(4A) Where a person is charged under subsection (1) of this section with the offence of selling intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen and he is charged by reason of his own act, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(a) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence; or
(b) that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.

(4B) Where the person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section is the licence holder and he is charged by reason of the act or default of some other person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection." —
(4) For subsections (8) and (9), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 of the standard scale; and on a person's second or subsequent conviction of such an offence the court may, if the offence was committed by him as the holder of a justices' licence, order that he shall forfeit the licence."—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, to leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
'(b) that he had good reason to believe that the person was over eighteen'.
New Clause 7—Under Age Drinking—
'In section 169 (Serving or delivering intoxicating liquor to or for consumption by persons under 18) of the principal Act—
(1) In subsections (1), (5) and (6) the word "knowingly" shall he omitted wherever it occurs.

Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). I had hoped that amendment No. 1 would be included. I am not questioning the judgment of the Chair, but it matters to many people in they industry what hours the work. The amendment would have provided us with the opportunity to help those who have to serve the public. I am not questioning your judgment in the slightest, but many people who work in the industry and have to open for these hours will be bitterly disappointed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I can say to both hon. Members and to the whole House that Mr. Speaker gives very careful consideration to all factors—including the length of time for which any particular subject may have been considered in the Standing Committee —before making his selection. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Members. They may be able to use their ingenuity to raise these points on the amendments that have been selected, although I am sure that if they do, they will be careful to remember the rules of order of the House.
(2) After subsection (10) there shall be added the following subsection—
(11) In proceedings for an offence under any provision of this section it is a defence to prove that a person charged with the offence believed the person to be of or over the age mentioned in that provision and had reasonable grounds for the belief.".'.
Government amendments Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 22.

Mr. Hogg: One feature of our debates on Second Reading and in Committee was the concern felt in the House and elsewhere about the problem of under-age drinking. That concern was also reflected in the report of the committee, chaired by Lady Masham, which was established by the Home Office. The new clause is our


considered response to that anxiety. It contains the proposals that we are bringing forward in the hope of resolving at least some of the difficulties.
I think that it would help if I spoke only briefly on the new clause and tried to identify only its major elements, because I know that many hon. Members want to participate in the debate. The main change that we propose is to delete the requirement of "knowingly" from the first limb of the offence in section 169(1). The justification for making that change is that it is too difficult to prove, in the context of that offence, that the person had the required knowledge. One of two things has to be proved in the context of that offence — either express knowledge that the customer is under age or a deliberate inattention to that possibility; closure of one's eyes to a fact would probably constitute the required degree of knowledge.
It is probably because of the difficulty of establishing the offence that the subsection has given rise to very few convictions. In 1986—the last year for which we have records — there were 165 convictions under that subsection in England and Wales. Bearing in mind that there are about 145,325 licensees, that is not very many. I recommend to the House that it delete the word "knowingly" from the first offence in subsection 1. That would transfer a burden to licensees that they did not previously carry.
One has then to ask whether the offence should he an absolute offence or one to which there should be a defence. That matter exercised the members of the committee, some of whom took the view that it should be an absolute offence to which there should be no defence. I do not think that it would be right in principle or practice to make it an absolute offence. Therefore, we have introduced a defence, which is set out in the new clause.
I make no apologies for the fact that the defence has been lifted — I think, without alteration — from the equivalent legislation in Scotland, the 1976 Act. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is smiling. He is right that in this respect we have had something to learn from the Scots. I am delighted to pay tribute to the Scots. We took the defence provided in their legislation and incorporated into our own.
In the end, one has to ask, "Have we got the balance right? Is the defence too liberal or too oppressive to licensees?" No doubt hon. Members will wish to address their attention to that question. I can give only my view, which is that we have the balance about right. It appears to have worked in Scotland, where there have been significantly more convictions, having regard to the number of licensees, than we have in this country.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is looking at me with a questioning eye. Let me give him the figures. In Scotland, there were 106 convictions in 1986, against 13,900 licensed premises.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I should not have mentioned the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Anderson: If the Minister will allow me, I shall ask him a pertinent question. As there are now more liberal laws in Scotland — presumably the law in this respect was previously the same—what, if any, is the difference

in the number of convictions before the law was liberalised and under the current position when the law is now substantially more liberal than in England and Wales?

Mr. Hogg: If I had been the hon. Gentleman, I should have asked precisely the same question, being anxious to torment the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I must confess that I do not know the answer. I have the figures only as far back as 1979 —[Interruption.] Well, I willingly acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has a good debating point. What I do know is that, having regard to the number of licensees, more convictions have been obtained in Scotland—as a proportion of the number of licensees —than has been possible in England and Wales during comparable periods. That is basically because transfernng the burden of proof has made prosecution easier. Without apology to the House, I believe that we should make the offence easier to prove. Either we are serious in trying to tackle the problem of under-age drinking, in which case we go along the kind of route that I have outlined to the House, or we are not.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the number of convictions, 165 out of 296 prosecutions, as high a figure as there is generally in criminal convictions where there have been pleas of not guilty? What is my hon. Friend complaining about?

Mr. Hogg: I was pointing out to my hon. and learned Friend that there are about 145,325 licensees. Anybody who has studied the evidence, read the Masham report or even had regard to the evidence of his own eyes, knows perfectly well that a lot of under-age drinking is going on, both in public houses and through the purchase of alcohol from supermarkets. Having regard to that evidence, the fact that there were only 165 convictions in 1986 suggests, to me at least, that the offence is too difficult to prove.
I advise my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), whose experience is as great as my own—some might say that it is greater in the context of criminal cases — that in this case the concept of "knowingly" is extraordinarily difficult to establish. I find it difficult to see how one could establish that against a licensee in a busy pub at night. Therefore, I am not in the least bit surprised to find that that aspect of the law is little enforced.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Why is the emphasis in the proposals on punishing the licensee? Why does my hon. Friend not seek to punish the youngsters who knowingly try to mislead the licensee? Why does he not seek to punish perhaps the parents of those youngsters who go in, knowingly, to deceive a licensee? Why is my hon. Friend being so hard on the licensee in this respect?

Mr. Hogg: I suspect that many hon. Members will say that I am not being harsh enough and that the defence is too liberal. I advise my hon. Friend that it is already an offence to sell alcohol to those who are under age. The question is whether we are serious about that offence. My hon. Friend's intervention suggests that he does not think that we should be in a position to enforce the law against a licensee. I take a different view and I think that it is a question of balance. I am commending to the House an offence that will be committed when there is an occasion to sell to an under-age person. That will be matched by a defence, which I hope has been drawn in sufficiently wide terms so as not to punish people for honest mistakes—

Mr. Dicks: rose—

Mr. Hogg: If my hon. Friend wants me to give way again, I shall of course do so.

Mr. Dicks: I make the point about punishment for the young person who knowingly tries to deceive the licensee and possibly some kind of punishment against that young person's parents, who should be responsible. My hon. Friend is putting the emphasis on the licensees, who have a difficult job. Why is he not taking some action against others who deliberately break the law by seeking to drink when they are under age?

Mr. Hogg: I advise my hon. Friend that it is already an offence for an under-age person to buy a drink. That is already on the statute book. If my hon. Friend would care to refresh his memory on that point, it is in section 169(2). Is my hon. Friend really saying that in the absence of knowledge, we should prosecute the parents of a child who goes into a pub? I would not subscribe willingly to such a proposition.
We have got the balance about right. Of course, it is a question of judgment and I am sure that I shall be told by other people that I have been too liberal to licensees. However, I present this proposal to the House on the basis that it is a balanced approach, which is likely to make the law more enforceable but in a way which is not unduly oppressive to licensees.

Mr. Anderson: On the obligation of young people—the point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) — the Minister will recall that the Masham committee drew attention to the problems of the police in obtaining the age of young people which might assist them in obtaining a conviction. The Masham committee made the specific recommendation that it should be an offence for a young person to refuse to disclose his age to a police officer, who reasonably suspects him of being under age, so that the law can properly be enforced. As that would usefully have buttressed the Government's proposals, why did they reject that recommendation of the Masham committee?

Mr. Hogg: That recommendation is contained in paragraph 155 of Lady Masham's report. I came to the conclusion that it was wrong and I shall tell the hon. Member for Swansea, East why I thought that it was wrong. It is a basic principle of English law that one is not obliged to incriminate oneself. The hon. Gentleman is as well aware of that principle as I am. It is an offence for an under-age person to buy alcohol in the circumstances that we are discussing. That being so, had we acceded to Lady Masham's recommendation, we would have been putting on an under-age person an obligation, backed by criminal law, to make a statement which could itself prove that that person had committed an offence. I do not subscribe to that proposition, because it infringes all the principles about self-incrimination. That is why the Government and I declined to follow that piece of advice. The hon. Gentleman may not agree, but that is the reason.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, if it is difficult for police officers to ascertain the ages of youngsters in public houses, it is 10 times more difficult for licensees to do so?

Mr. Hogg: Undoubtedly, it is not always easy for a licensee to do so. That is why, when we created the defence

which features in the new clause, we created a defence of a kind which we think that a licensee will be able to establish so that he cannot be said to be either negligent or culpable in the sense that we mean it.
We have the great advantage of the Scottish experience in this regard, as in many others. I am not aware that the licensees of Scotland are up in arms against the defence that is provided for in Scottish legislation. That is why I find incorporating the Scottish example so useful. We are building on a tried and tested precedent which I do not think has given rise to the kind of problem that my hon. Friend has outlined.

Mr. Hoyle: As the Minister seems to have armed himself with a lot of statistics, can he tell me how many supermarkets have been prosecuted?

Mr. Hogg: The short answer is no, Sir. However, if I can find out before the debate has concluded, and if there is a convenient peg on which to hang that piece of information, I shall provide it; otherwise, I shall try to write to the hon. Gentleman at his and my convenience. I do not know the answer to his question at the moment.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend is being very helpful, and it is appreciated by everyone. He has reminded the House that it is an offence for a young person who is under age to seek to buy alcohol in a public house. He gave us the figures for licensees' convictions, but has he any knowledge of the number of young people who have been convicted in recent years of having committed that offence? If he does not have those figures to hand, will it be possible for us to have them later?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that my answer is exactly the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle): I do not have that particular statistic to hand, but I will try to obtain it before the end of the debate. If I fail, I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith)—and I apologise to him.

Sir Bernard Braine: I note that my hon. Friend does not have those figures to hand, but he will know that the OPCS survey — upon which the Government sat for a year before its disclosure—gave clear figures about the harm being done to young people drinking in public houses—they were not getting their liquor from supermarkets. He must have access to those OPCS figures and therefore must know the size of the problem. Perhaps that information will assist him to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith).

Mr. Hogg: As is so often the case, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). My right hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem of under-age drinking, both in public houses and as a result of purchases at supermarkets. If the House is conscious of its obligations it has jolly well got to do something about that problem. The conclusion that I have drawn — I believe that it is shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point — is that section 169(1), in its present form, is defective.

Sir Bernard Braine: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I note that my right hon. Friend is nodding in agreement.
The proposals that I have put before the House are designed to make that law more enforceable without, at the same time, being unreasonable to licensees. I commend the new clause to the House on that basis.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We believe that it is entirely appropriate that under-age drinking should be the first subject of debate on Report, because it is an important topic. It exercised our minds a great deal in Committee and the Committee regarded it as an important priority.
We first raised the problem on Second Reading and then followed that with several amendments in Committee. At a superficial glance it would appear that the Minister has listened to what we have said and taken on board some of our concerns about this grave problem, which is presently affecting so many young people.
The Minister ended his speech by saying that under-age drinking is a major problem in this country. I do not intend to rehearse all the statistics that we quoted on Second Reading and in Committee, but we should be under no illusion about just how major a problem it is. I wish to emphasise the scale and nature of the problem of under-age drinking. The Minister said that we could see the evidence with our own eyes, and that is true. All the evidence, including Government-sponsored research from the Health Education Council, from Action on Alcohol Abuse and from the Masham report, mentioned by the Minister, which reported while the Committee was still sitting, indisputably proves that under-age drinking is a major problem.
Let me remind the House of one or two important statistics so that we get this problem into perspective. A survey conducted by the Health Education Council showed that 65 per cent. of all 14 and 15-year-olds have drunk alcohol on more than one occasion. The Masham report showed that 50 per cent. of 15-year-old boys had had a drink in the previous seven days. It also showed that 61 per cent. of 17-year-old boys and 54 per cent. of 17-year-old girls had had a drink in the previous week. The majority of 16 and 17-year-olds do their drinking in public houses. That information shows that under-age drinking in public houses is a major problem and one that we are right to concentrate our attention upon.
A further survey conducted by Exeter university showed that not only are young people drinking, but that they are also drinking far too much for their own or anyone's good. They are consuming, on average, 10 units of alcohol a week, which means that many must be consuming more. When we consider that level of consumption in comparison with the figure suggested by the Department of Health and Social Security as the average, safe intake for adults, it gives us an alarming picture of the likely future trends of alcohol problems.
I do not believe that it is alarmist to say that today's under-age drinkers may become tomorrow's alcoholics. If we allow under-age drinking to continue at its present rate, we are storing up many future problems for those individuals and for the country.
Alcohol abuse, especially by young people, is a major problem. We are all aware that alcohol abuse costs this country £2 billion a year. It would be interesting to consider what the Health Service could do with that money today, but perhaps we should not go down that road. It is clear that alcohol is a major problem for young people, because alcohol abuse kills or seriously injures ten

times as many youngsters as are killed or injured by drug abuse. However, quite rightly, we spend a lot of time and money discouraging young people from taking drugs, but we do not pay the same attention to discouraging young people from drinking alcohol.
We all enjoy alcohol from time to time, and we probably regard ourselves as social drinkers. Therefore, we often shy away from giving advice and paying attention to the problems that come with alcohol abuse. As the Minister has suggested, we should start the debate in agreement by acknowledging that there is a major alcohol problem and acknowledging its extent.
The next stage is to decide what we should do about the problem. In Committee, I said that there were no quick answers, no simple solutions and no easy, straightforward changes to legislation that could cure the problem at a stroke, once and for all. However, I believe that we agreed in Committee—indeed, the Minister acknowledged it—that some action was needed. The Minister has said that there should be changes to section 169 of the principal Act. I accept that that is necessary.
In Committee, I pointed out that landlords and bar staff have difficulty in recognising who is 17 and who is 18. However, the fact that it is sometimes difficult to judge a person's age exactly should not be used as an excuse to do nothing about the problem. We cannot say that, because it is difficult in some instances to tell a person's age, we should ignore the problem.
The Minister has presented the House with the new clause and said that he believes that it will help the situation. I do not believe that it will make any significant difference and for that reason my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 2. I would also recommend the House to consider carefully new clause 7, tabled by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Why has the Minister apparently changed his mind since we discussed the matter in Committee? We discussed the matter as recently as 12 January, only 22 days ago, yet it seems that t he Minister has reconsidered the matter since then.
On 12 January, when the Minister discussed this matter in Committee, he said that it was difficult to prosecute to prove the concept of "knowingly". He repeated that assertion today, and we agree with the Minister. However, in Committee, he went on to say that he favoured a
statutory defence along the lines of the Firearms Act 1968.
The Minister considered that that would be the proper way forward and would be a tighter way of righting the law so that we could get the balance right between making sure that the problem was tackled and that landlords were protected in the necessary way.
The Minister went on to say:
The defence would be that the person doing the supplying had a belief that the person was over age, and that he had reasonable grounds for that belief." —[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 12 January 1988; c. 337.]
The Minister clearly said that the landlord should have reasonable grounds for the belief that the person was 18. That was his suggestion as recently as January, and that was the suggestion on which he sought consultation on 22 December in his letter to interested parties. The Minister owes it to the House to explain what has happened in the past 22 days to make him change his mind from the preferred solution, which we would have found acceptable and which he outlined in his letter and proposed on 12 January.
5.30 pm
All the responses that I have seen to the Minister's letter of 22 December are either in favour of his proposals or have said that the Minister is not going far enough. On 12 January, no hon. Member objected to the Minister's proposals. The Institute of Alcohol Studies suggested this proposal to the Wakeham committee. Action on Alcohol Abuse said that the proposals in the Minister's letter did not go far enough. The Justices' Clerks Society wants the sale of alcohol to under-18s to be an absolute offence—not something with which I agree — and wants to go further than the Minister's proposals. Why has the Minister backed down so completely from his assurance of 12 January?
The Minister is simply proposing the reintroduction of "knowingly" in another way. To say, as the new clause says, that the landlord should have
no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen
is almost meaningless, because it does not oblige the landlord to make any attempt to find out a customer's age. Landlords can make genuine mistakes, and we all recognise the difficulties. Some landlords — perhaps a minority, but still a significant number—will think that it does not matter if they serve people under the age of 18 because the law is woolly and they will get away with it time and again.
Our amendment (a) tries to deal with that. We agree that selling to someone under 18 should not be an absolute offence. We should allow for a mistake that is genuine, but not provide a blanket dispensation for landlords to sell to people under 18 without obliging them to make checks. The Minister's statistics on convictions in Scotland prove little. We all know that convictions in England and Wales have been reduced dramatically over the past 10 years simply because the law was not operable. In England and Wales in 1985 there were 744 convictions, whereas in 1975 there were nearly 4,000. One reason for the reduction in the number of cases brought to the courts is that the law was so woolly and it was difficult for charges to be pressed.
The Minister said that either we are serious about trying to tackle the problem of under-age drinking or we are not. We agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between those who are serious about tackling this problem and those who merely pay lip service to it. We had hoped that the Minister would take the matter seriously. Our amendment is the serious way of tackling this problem. I urge the House to support amendment (a) and new clause 7.

Sir Bernard Braine: The House may recall that on Second Reading my main anxiety was that the Government were not prepared to tackle the problem of under-age drinking. I could not understand why the Government, introducing the first Licensing Bill for decades, appeared unwilling to tackle a problem graver than illicit drug-taking. About 1,000 young people die every year as a result of alcohol abuse. More young people die every year or have their health gravely impaired through alcohol abuse than heroin abuse. I am delighted that the Government have seen the error of their ways and are now prepared in new clause 2 to begin to move on this issue.
I say "begin to move" because new clause 2 differs from the amendment which, in a letter of 22 December, the Home Office indicated it would recommend to the

Wakeham committee. The amendment was to delete the word "knowingly", so making the offence absolute, but to introduce a defence for the licensee, namely:
The person charged to prove that he or she believed the other person to be of or above the age … and had reasonable ground for the belief.
I am not concerned that the Government have changed the defence to "due diligence". After all, that is the wording of other sections of the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to young people, and it is a defence used in other statutes, such as the Fair Trading Act. I object to the inclusion in new clause 2 of the additional defence of the landlord,
(b) that he had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen.
To prescribe an additional defence weakens the measure so much that we might as well have been left with the present wording of the Act, to wit "knowingly sold". The onus will still be on the prosecution to prove that the licensee "knowingly" sold to the person under age.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government have bowed to pressure from the Brewers Society and other drink industry representations on this matter. The Justices' Clerks Society, which has a special expertise in this area, is of the view that selling to youngsters under drinking age should be an absolute offence. In discussing the Home Office recommendations of 22 December and my new clause 7, the clerks said that they would go along with it because
it was a step in the right direction",
but they did not believe that it was good enough. Nor do I. The Government's amendment, including the words,
had no reason to suspect that the person was under eighteen",
is nowhere near good enough.
I am dismayed, too, that, under the weight of evidence collected by Government statisticians, public concern and the wise counsels of a working party established by the Home Office, the Government are so weak-kneed that they have to bow to a vested interest. I feel so strongly about this issue that I shall press my amendment to a vote, unless my hon. Friend the Minister assures me that the second part of the new clause touching on a defence will be withdrawn.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her colleagues who served on the Committee, particularly for bringing the issue of alcohol and young people to the fore. This is a national scandal, and I am grateful to all who drew attention to the matter.
It is said that the Government did not have an amendment ready for Committee stage where it could have been discussed and improved. I am pleased to note that some of my hon. Friends are beginning to see the necessity of Government action after the information supplied by the Opposition — alas, not by the Government. However, it was given to them.
In that respect, I note the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) during the 10th and final sitting of the Committee:
I have been brooding on the issue for a while.… The more I think about this the clearer it becomes that some of the things said in earlier debates are valid … If there were alternative places for these young people to drink, to gather and to talk, I believe that many of those who now get hooked"—
"hooked" is the right word to use—
into drinking alcohol would be perfectly happy not to do so.


Youth leaders in my constituency, and no doubt in many other constituencies, have been saying for years that the problem is getting out of hand. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State paid tribute to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent, but he also paid tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), stating:
He will recall that we had talks about a possible way of amending the law. We discussed — the hon. Gentleman mentioned it in the Committee, as did I, in further discussion —the deletion from the offence of the word "knowingly" and the inclusion of a statutory defence along the lines of the Firearms Act 1968.
We should note the words:
We felt that that might be a proper way forward."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 12 January 1988; c. 336–37.]
I consider that it is
Why this change of mind? Why has the Bill been worded in this way? Why move even further away from the expert opinion of the Justices' Clerks Society? Who is the Minister trying to placate? Why am I so deeply concerned? I am so concerned because I consider the facts. One out of every five 15-year-old boys drinks 25 units of alcohol per week. The safe limit for adult males is 21 units. One out of every 10 15-year-old girls drinks above the safe limit for adult women of 14 units of alcohol each week.
By the age of 15, alcohol consumption is normal and it takes place illegally on licensed premises. Two out of five boys and one in three girls have been drunk on more than one occasion. One in five boys and one in eight girls have been unable to go to school after drinking. Where does this evidence come from? Have I plucked it out of the air? It comes from Government-sponsored research.
Yet, in an answer on 17 November, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), said that the number of licensees found guilty of "knowingly" selling to under-I8s had gone down from 248 in 1979 to 165 in 1986. It was appalling that the Minister could not give any figures for the period to 1979. Why not? Nobody had bothered to collect them. That is why I hope hon. Members will support my new clause.
We must monitor the effects of liquor licensing, without which we are floundering in the dark. My hon. Friend conceded that the reason why few licensees are brought to court and convicted is the difficulty of proving that they have knowingly sold to under-age drinkers, the consequent waste of police and court resources and the Government's insistence on reneging on their promise to include words such as:
That he had no reason to suspect that the person was under 18.
This will render section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964
The Government must know that public and press opinion wants tighter measures. If the House represents the nation, it should know that the national and local press have been arguing for these for months past. I have sheaves of reports from provincial newspapers, but I shall refer only to two of them. The Colchester Evening Gazette of 19 January, under a headline, "A Welcome Crackdown", stated:
The Government's planned blitz on under-age drinking is long overdue. The law, as it stands, does not do enough to discourage the sale of alcohol to people who are obviously too young. The well-worn argument is that it is difficult to tell a person's age accurately, and teenagers invariably look older than they really are. In that way, those who sell alcohol illegally are able to shift the blame from themselves. Some, it

appears, take the view that it is up to the person whose age might be in doubt to produce proof that he or she is over 18. Too many blind eyes are being turned. And far too many young people are becoming dependent on alcohol from an early age.
Teenage drinking has become a growing worry, with the problems it causes increasingly more apparent. Those problems have surfaced time and again in Colchester town centre, where gangs of youths swigging from bottles and cans have, at times, made Saturday shopping a misery. A police woman, beaten up in Colchester town centre last year, for example, blamed the easy availability of drink for many of the problems. Anything to discourage alcohol abuse among the vulnerable under 18s is to be welcomed.
Let me quote now from the Yorkshire Evening Post of 19 January which, under a headline "Alcohol Abuse," states:
The Government's latest moves to combat the problem of under-age drinking are a disappointment. While the announcement of stiffer fines for publicans serving alcohol to under 18s is welcome, more could be done to tackle the problem at its roots.
The proposed legislation seems to ignore 50 recommendations made by an independent working party on young people and alcohol headed by Baroness Masham. The proposed Government Licensing Bill does not have the teeth to bite the bullet; it avoids direct action in favour of renewed publicity and educational campaigns. Until we see the authorities armed with a positive mandate to fight this problem it will continue to plague society.
And today's young drinkers often grow into tomorrow's social outcasts.
The great playwright, Arthur Miller, once said that a newspaper is a mirror reflecting the views of society. I guarantee that such views have appeared in every provincial newspaper in the country over the past year, and, if hon. Members read their local newspapers, they must know the truth.

Mr. Colvin: I must declare an interest before my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) calls me to task, as I am a licensee. The licensing trade shares the view expressed by my right hon. Friend. Surely it is not so much the licensee as the off-licensee who is at fault. There has been an increase in fines from £100 to £400, but that is nothing compared with the loss of livelihood if he is caught selling drink to under-age drinkers. Surely, therefore, we should tackle the off-licence trade.

Sir Bernard Braine: We have been told that there are very few prosecutions. For once, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). The overwhelming majority of licensees would like to see the law strengthened. They want to keep orderly houses. In some cases, it is impossible for them to do so. It is high time that the police were given the powers to deal with some of the matters that will emerge from this debate.
I have been to the south and the north, so I must also refer to a midland newspaper. The headline of the Wolverhampton Express and Star of 19 January stated:
Get tough to dry out our teeny tipplers.
The article continued:
The astounding statistic that half of all 11-year-old boys and one third of 11-year-old girls drink reveals the necessity for urgency by the Government.
Though there obviously are landlords who knowingly serve drink to people under-age, guessing people's ages is no simple matter these days. There is also the problem that"—

Mr. Hoyle: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall give way in a moment, but, out of respect for the people of Wolverhampton, who loyally support this newspaper, I wish to finish the quotation. The article continues:
it is physically impossible for a landlord to know exactly who is in his pub at busy times, and it is a simple matter for an 18-year-old to buy for a minor. However, as the problem has already reached epidemic proportions, there is no alternative but to make landlords doubly aware of the onus that is on them.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that any landlord has served an 11-year-old child in a pub? If that is so, the landlord deserves every punishment.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am merely reporting what the newspaper says. Before the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, let me say that newspapers reflect information collected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, in a survey commissioned by the Government, to establish what was happening with teenagers in public houses. I am not the authority. The Government have the information. Let them provide it; let them publish it; and let us discuss it. If newspapers faithfully report what is happening, we should praise, not question or condemn, them.

Mr. Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a question not of knowing the information—that is already available in numerous reports— but of enforcement and commitment? It is on those tests that the Government fail.

Sir Bernard Braine: I fear that I must agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is the purpose of my amendment, and it will be the purpose of much of what I have to say.
In a letter dated 10 December 1987 to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the Institute of Alcohol Studies said:
A tightening of the law in this respect would show that the Government has taken the problem seriously and would be an important safeguard against any adverse effect the Bill might have on this problem ֵֵ At present the law is difficult to apply and one cannot expect police forces to try to enforce it or for magistrates courts to spend time in trying to prove that alcohol had been 'knowingly' sold ֵֵParents should accept their responsibilities but this cannot be effectively done if the law colludes with a bad situation and offers little help to conscientious parents.
The letter goes on to hope that the Government would reply properly:
This would be a clear signal that the Government has a real concern about the problem and is determined to stamp it out.
The only answer that we have received from the Government is tepid. I hope that the House will reject it and support my amendment, which goes much further in heeding those who deal with alcohol abuse — the Institute of Alcohol Studies, those who administer the law, the Justices' Clerks Society and the vast majority of magistrates, teachers and caring members of the public. They cannot understand why a problem affecting our youth—our lifeline to the future—is treated so lightly.

Mr. Greg Knight: On reflection, does not my right hon. Friend consider that he is being a little unfair to the Government's new clause? Does he accept that there is a difference between the use of the word "knowingly" and the use of the defence mentioned in new clause 2, whereby the landlord would have to prove that

there was no reason for him to suspect that the person was under 18? Does not new clause 2 put the landlord on guard, which is very different from the existing words in the statute?

Sir Bernard Braine: For reasons that I shall not repeat —many hon. Members wish to speak—I made it clear that the Government have weakened their position by inserting a second defence, and I think that that is wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would help the House if I were to explain that if new clause 2 is accepted, I am prepared to call amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for a division, and I shall ask her to move it formally at the appropriate time.
With regard to new clause 7, which is being discussed with this group, the Chair will come to a decision when one has been made on new clause 2.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall add such weight as I have to the Government's position on this matter.
I support the anxiety that has been expressed about the problem of under-age drinking. It is notable that the House has accepted that absolute criminal responsibility, which is repugnant in principle and frequently inequitable in practice, is not the proper way to deal with the problem; not least because, as has been mentioned, the person who knows his or her age best is the under-age person to whom drink is supplied. Frequently, for the purposes of prosecution, the person who has committed an offence must be called as a witness to bring home a conviction against the licence holder or the person who has suppplied alcohol illegally.
The Minister referred favourably to the Scottish position. The relevant provisions in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 are to be found in sections 68 and 71. With slight alteration, the Government propose a defence in terms such as are provided by section 71 of that Act.
It is important to realise that that statutory provision represented a departure from the position prior to 1976, when the offence could be committed only knowingly. The Clayson committee, whose report formed a substantial basis for the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, spent much time and devoted much of its energy considering whether "knowingly" should remain. It resolved that it should not, and the defence now provided by section 71 of the 1976 Act is a consequence of its recommendations.
It must be emphasised that previously in Scotland, and currently in England, the existence of the word "knowingly" in the definition of the offence necessarily meant and means that it is for the prosecution to prove, expressly or by implication, that the person charged committed the offence in the knowledge of what he or she was doing.
The Government's proposals, which reflects the terms of section 71 of the 1976 Act, puts the obligation of proof fairly and squarely on the person charged. It says so in terms. If people who are charged fail to prove either that they used due diligence to prevent the occurrence of the offence or that they had no reason to suspect that the person concerned was under 18, they will fail to satisfy either of the twin arms of the defence and inevitably will be likely to be convicted.
It is important to understand that the proposal represents a substantial change in the onus of proof with regard to knowledge or implied knowledge. Anecdotal


evidence is notoriously unreliable in these matters. There is little doubt that, prior to 1976 in Scotland, successful attempts to bring home a conviction in relation to an offence in which the word "knowingly" appeared were extremely few and far between.
I do not say that what is right for Scotland is necessarily always right for England and Wales, nor that what was right for Scotland in 1976 should necessarily still be right in 1988. The proper approach is to consider whether there is any evidence to suggest that in Scotland the section 71 defence gives unreasonable protection to licence holders or stands in the way of prosecution or conviction. In my judgment — I accept that it is entirely a matter of judgment — the Government have achieved a proper balance between the public interest and that of licence holders. Occasionally, in our desire to underline the problem of under-age drinking, we tend to forget that licence holders have rights.
Although the Opposition will have a free vote, I shall be happy to support the Government's proposal in this regard if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Colvin: I declare an interest as a licensee, a modest one. It may be necessary to quantify one's commercial interests in having a pub. I can only say that mine is more a local social necessity than a commercial enterprise.Without it, I do not think that the parish council or the parochial church council would have anywhere to meet. That is one reason why I am a publican. I took the pub to prevent it from being knocked down and the area developed as a housing estate.
Having read from cover to cover the Official Report of the deliberations of Standing Committee H, I too am impressed by the time spent discussing the dangers of alcohol abuse and under-age drinking. Concern about under-age drinking is felt not only by hon. Members but by the public, publicans and the trade. That is why we welcomed the launch on 12 November 1987 of the campaign "Age Watch" to alert the public to the problem and remind staff in public houses of the penalties for selling drink to those under 18.
6 pm
I congratulate the Government on setting up the working party on "Young People and Alcohol" under the chairmanship of Baroness Masham. The working party's report to the ministerial group on alcohol abuse, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, led to Government new clause 2. I noted with interest the ministerial group's seven-point plan. The first proposal is:
To tighten the offence of selling alcohol to under-age drinkers and incease penalties for those found guilty of doing so.
Secondly, the group calls for the
Creation of a new offence making it illegal for wholesalers to sell alcohol to persons under 18.
That is very welcome. Thirdly, it proposes:
New regulations to require the alcoholic strength of prepackaged and dispensed drinks to be clearly shown.
Fourthly, it calls for
Information aimed at particular groups such as young people.
The fifth proposal is:
To request the BBC and independent broadcasting authority to review the way alcohol is presented to TV viewers.
I think that hon. Members agree that that is important. The sixth proposal is:

To request the IBA and the Advertising Standards Authority … to take a fresh look at advertising codes of practice.
The seventh proposal is:
Encouragement of the industry to increase promotion of low and non-alcoholic beers and wines.
That is what the ministerial group wanted. So far, all, we have is the Government's proposal, which we are debating.
The licensee, especially the publican—the on-licensee — is in no way interested in selling alcohol to those under 18. A conviction for doing so can result in loss of licence, livelihood and even the licensee's home. No responsible licensee would wish to take such risks when the penalties are so severe. The £100 fine—which will be increased to £400—is almost immaterial when compared with the other penalties that could befall any licensee who broke the law.
The inclusion of the word "knowingly" in the Licensing Act 1964 has given some protection to the innocent licensee, but has still made it possible for irresponsible people to be prosecuted. Although I accept that the law regarding the sale of alcohol to young people needs tightening up, I do not believe that the removal of the word "knowingly" is the right way to do so.
Notwithstanding the principle in British law, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred, of avoiding the danger of self-incrimination, I think that there could be more prosecutions under the existing law. Those under 18 can be prosecuted for purchasing and consuming alcohol on licensed premises — including registered clubs, but excluding private functions held on the premises. It would help if the consumption of .alcohol by under-18s in public places was banned.
The debate once again raises the knotty issue of the introduction of identity cards for everyone over the age of 18. That would assist not only the publican but the police and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is also dealing with the knotty problem of firearms legislation. I welcome the crackdown on under-age drinking, but I do not believe that the Government have found the best way of doing it. I shall decide whether or not to support the Government's proposal after hearing the response by my hon. Friend the Minister. The other place must take on board what is said here and perhaps alter the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Hoyle: I had better declare at once that one of the organisations whose view I may express is the National Association of Licensed House Managers. It is right that the association's view on such an important matter should be heard in the House, because it is a responsible body. I cannot think of anyone in the House or outside it who condones under-age drinking. It would be silly to do so. There is great concern that this is a growing disease, and I agree with every word that has been said about the consequences. It is a tragedy that so many young people find it easy to get hard liquor.
I do not believe that deletion of the word "knowingly" will end the problem. Most licensees do not want underage drinkers on their premises. That can be a nuisance and can create a nuisance outside the premises. The licensee's difficulty is in detecting who is under age. The NALHM, as a responsible body, takes every precaution it can to avoid selling alcohol to those under age and that approach is also taken by the staff.
It would be silly to say that that applies to every licensee. Of course it does not. There are one or two people who should be punished and convicted. However, one legal opinion says:
I know of no other occupation where an employee is automatically guilty of an offence as a result of lies, or deception by customers. That is the position the Licensee will be in. Further, in no other occupation is it so easy to become disqualified as a result of the dishonest activities of third parties.
There are many consequences of conviction. It is not just the fine; it is the loss of livelihood. A licensee can lose his home as well. A heavy penalty can result from conviction so it is not in the interests of a licensee—whether a house manager or a tenant — to permit a person who is under age to drink on the premises.

Mr. Anderson: The question is whether the lawyer who proffered the legal opinion to which my hon. Friend referred had bothered to read the Government new clause. If there had been deception on the part of the young person, that would certainly provide a defence to the licensee under the Government's proposal. Either the legal opinion has no weight or it is out of date.

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend knows that often it is the licensee who is in court, not the person who committed the offence of drinking under age. Often it is that young person who prosecutes the person who sold the drink.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I want to emphasise a point and reassure people working in the industry. We are not saying that everyone who serves someone under the age of 18 has committed an offence; we are saying that he has committed an offence if he did not take steps to ascertain the age of the customer. Our amendment says that if the licensee had good reason to believe that the person was over 18, that will be a defence. The reason that the young person may give may not be substantiated later, but if the licensee acted in good faith and genuinely believed the customer to be over 18, that would be a defence in court.

Mr. Hoyle: Yes, I understand that, but good reason could be interpreted widely in that connection. That is why I prefer the word "knowingly". If the act was knowingly done, the licensee should have taken every precaution. If the change goes through, it could lead to many honest people being put in difficulty.
It is also necessary to stop up the other loophole through which young people can easily obtain drink—I refer to supermarkets and off-licences. When I asked the Minister how many supermarkets had been prosecuted, he said that he would have to go away to get me the information. It is very easy for young people to get drink from such places. In bygone days, which Conservative Members profess to like—the Victorian and Edwardian eras—they sent the child with a jug to get the beer for the father when he came home. Now, however, a youngster can go into a supermarket and buy a can of beer, not for his parents, but for himself.
That is the difficulty and the weakness in the present law. I am foursquare behind anyone who wants to try to prevent young people from drinking, but it seems to me that nothing is being done about this easy method by which young people can obtain liquor. We have seen it happen at football grounds near which all the pubs have

been closed. Young people have gone on to the grounds with crates of beer and drunk them there. That beer was not obtained from public houses, but from supermarkets.

Mr. Colvin: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the tighter the licensing hours are, the less often will people drink in pubs and the more will they drink at home? One of the results of the introduction of flexible hours in Scotland has been that more people — particularly women—have drunk in pubs. So drink has not been purchased in supermarkets and taken home, where the children can get their hands on it. It is drink in the home that is bad. The only sociable and responsible place for people to drink, therefore, is in the public house.

Mr. Hoyle: We find ourselves today in a position that did not exist a few years ago — before the advent of supermarkets and the ease of obtaining liquor in them. I am asking that attention should be paid to that, and that the law should be tightened up. A few prosecutions would help. As has been pointed out, youngsters of both sexes become addicted to alcohol because it is so easy to go into supermarkets, see the liquor on display, fill up baskets with it and take it away. That is the problem.
I shall listen to what the Minister says, but to believe that deleting the word "knowingly" will make a great deal of difference to under-age drinking is wishful thinking—unless we are prepared to pay some attention to the ease with which drink can be obtained outside of licensed premises, and especially in supermarkets.

Sir Dudley Smith: I begin by declaring an interest. One of my management consultancy clients is a leading company in the drinks industry.
My main interest in the Bill is that it does a great deal for tourism. I represent a part of the country that is foremost in the business of tourism, for which the Bill would be beneficial. If an offence is blatant, no one would condone it and it should be severely punished. But unless it is, a sense of great injustice is often felt by the licensee who has been convicted, having used his best endeavours to find out the age of the customer concerned. I welcome the realistic provisions that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought forward.
One of the points that needs emphasising again and again—as it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)—is that the drink industry has no interest in trying to sell to under-age children in public houses. I am sure that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) would agree with that. Not only is it socially undesirable, but it means that the licensee will probably—almost certainly—lose his licence and livelihood, and the industry will be slurred by the event. So it is not trying to sell to people who are under age.
It has often been truly said that the great difficulty is being able to define what age a person is in an on-the-spot judgment. That is particularly difficult with young women, who often look much older than they are. I agree with hon. Members who have said that there should be some imposition on the culprit. There should certainly be a greater onus on the individual to prove that he or she is over the age of 18 when he or she tries to buy liquor in a public house.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether he had the figures for the number of convictions of such people, and


he was good enough to say that he would try to find out. I suspect that they will be minimal, and that hardly any young people up and down the country had been prosecuted for endeavouring to obtain liquor, when under age, in public houses.
As someone in the industry pointed out to me the other day, young people are eager enough to prove that they are under age when trying to obtain concessionary rail fares, so they should be obliged to prove that they are over the age of 18 and are legitimate customers.
The licensee is involved in this almost intractable problem in several areas. My hon. Friend has removed the word "knowingly". Obviously, when a person has committed an offence by knowingly selling to an underage person, he deserves to be and should be punished. When he has acted carelessly, that, too, is a good ground for his conviction. But when he has sold to under-age people mistakenly — provided that it was a genuine mistake—and his judgment has subsequently proved to be wrong, he should not be guilty of a criminal offence.
I agree with the Minister that it is important to enter a defence in the clause. That is essential, and the balance is now probably about right. It is important to be rigorous. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that there should be tough measures against people who deliberately try to encourage underage young people to drink and who supply them with drink. We should also be rigorous, because, although my right hon. Friend does not agree with them, the Bill's provisions extend the licensing hours and liberalise the public house. To balance that, there should be a much tougher attitude to those who supply drink to under-age people.
People sometimes forget that licensees can refuse to serve anyone. It does not have to be somebody who is drunk or about whose age he has doubts. A licensee need not serve anyone. Of course, he exercises his judgment. In future, as a result of the Bill, the licensee will err more on the side of caution. That will be a good thing. It may cause a certain amount of distress. Refusal often causes offence when a customer is innocent. There is nothing worse than an over-age person being accused of being under-age by a licensee or his assistant. In such circumstances, they will suffer. By erring on the side of caution, we have got the balance right.

Mr. Anderson: I regret that, unlike other hon. Members, I am not able to declare an interest.

Mr. Greg Knight: What is the hon. Gentleman's religion?

Mr. Anderson: I am a Christian.
I sympathise with some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) made a valid point about the culpability of a young person. He will recall my intervention during the Minister's speech. The Masham committee made a specific recommendation that a young person should be legally obliged to declare his age to a police officer who reasonably requires it for the purpose of a prosecution. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister's response was that the imposition of such an obligation on a young person would breach a fundamental principle of our law, that of self-incrimination. One understands that

self-incrimination is a cardinal principle of our law, but it can be breached and it has been breached if something is considered sufficiently important to do so.
The Government's response to the Masham committee recommendation demonstrates that they have failed to show any real commitment to the enforceability of the provision. One imagines that it is extremely difficult for magistrates to know that a young person is under the age of 18. How can a police officer, the Crown prosecution service, or anyone prove that point? A young person is under no obligation to attend a court unless he is summonsed, and he is unlikely to wish to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. One can well understand that, unless a police officer is furnished with such a legal course, the number of prosecutions will continue to be few. By failing to accept the Masham committee recommendation, the Government have undermined the possibility of enforcing the law in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned off-licences. Members of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers in my constituency, who, incidentally, do not accept the 11-to-11 fundamental change in the Bill, are concerned about the fact that the spotlight is constantly turned on the licensee rather than on supermarket owners. Therefore, it is said that the Government have chosen to deal only with that part of the matter.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) will surely accept that the current law, as the Government have argued, is not enforceable. The object of the change is not to ensure the conviction of licensees but, rather, to act as a deterrent to a minority of licensees who willingly choose to serve under-age drinkers, or fear that other licensees in their area will do so and pinch trade from them, and therefore acquiesce. At the moment, it is quite clear that, because of the inability to enforce it, the current law is not a deterrent. I judge the success or otherwise of the law not by examining the number of convictions but by its impact on the incidence of under-age drinking. That is the purpose of the legislation.
I approach the Government's amendment more in sorrow than in anger. I thought that we had reached a broad consensus in Committee. The Minister put forward his preferred solution, the Firearms Act 1968 precedent. When he examined the various options and formulae that may be applied in place of existing ones, surely his civil servants would have referred him to the Scottish precedent. It is the most obvious one to consider. He chose to reject it.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: For the benefit of hon. Members who were not on the Committee, will the hon. Member share with us what the Scottish precedent is?

Mr. Anderson: Briefly, the Scottish precedent is the amendment that the Government now propose in place of the formula that they stated to the Committee that they would prefer, which they set out for consultation in a letter dated 22 December. The Government's amendment is based wholly on the Scottish precedent.
A series of options were before the Minister. When they liberalised the law, it was sad that the Government did not, of their own volition, immediately appear before the Committee and say, "We are altering one side of the equation. We are liberalising the law. It is a relatively


modest increase." The Home Secretary talked about ending the "dead afternoon". In view of road traffic accidents, perhaps that was an unfortunate phrase to use.
The Government claimed that the increase was modest, but they certainly altered one side of the equation. Our complaint throughout was that they failed to alter the other side of the equation. It follows as night follows day that, if the law is liberalised and alcohol is more freely available, it is likely to lead to greater consumption. If there is such a correlation, unless there are adequate safeguards, it will lead to the drink-related problems that we discussed in Committee.
I am sure that the Minister, as a reasonable man, will accept that it was unfortunate that, when the Government appeared before the Committee with the proposition to liberalise the law, they failed to make any provision in respect of under-age drinking, when all the facts relating to the incidence of under-age drinking, alcoholism and alcohol-related problems generally were available to the Government. That is a sad sign of the Government's priorities in respect of alcoholism.
The Minister will recall that the establishment of the Wakeham committee was mentioned in Committee. A cynic might say that the Wakeham committee was cosmetic — to head off criticism of the Government's lack of action on alcoholism. We asked how often the Wakeham committee had met. We were told that, since its establishment in September until that time, it had met on only one occasion. Again, that is a sign of the Government's lack of commitment. We mentioned that, in his last Budget, the Chancellor did not raise the amount of duty on alcohol in line with inflation, as one would have expected. That is likely to lead to increased consumption.
There is an obvious, well-established correlation between the price of alcohol and its consumption. Had the Government been seriously concerned about it, they would certainly have increased relevant duties in line with inflation. We wonder whether, in his March Budget, the Chancellor will continue to allow the real price of alcohol to fall and thereby increase consumption, without introducing any of the safeguards for which we have been pressing.
If the man from Mars were to visit this country and looked at the Government's expenditure and advertising priorities, he would imagine that the real problems facing us were drug abuse and AIDS. So far, more than £17 million has been spent in this country in an effort to stamp out the drugs menace. In 1985, 11 people died after using heroin. In all, 99 people died from the illicit use of drugs. So far, 293 people have died as a result of contracting the AIDS virus and that has triggered the Government into spending £20 million on publicity.
We must compare those figures in 1985 with the figures for alcohol abuse. It is estimated that in 1985 between 25,000 and 40,000 people died as a result of alcohol abuse.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is a good argument and it must be ventilated. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that currently 20 per cent. of acute beds in our hospitals are occupied by people suffering from alcohol-related disease? One cannot minimise the costs to the community and the country as a whole of alcohol when it is consumed to

excess. That is the main reason why the Government have lost an opportunity to tighten the controls. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Anderson: Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The figures showing the total cost to the country of alcohol abuse are readily available. However, I will not rehearse the figures because I want to make progress.
I have already said that our approach to the Bill is to try to balance the liberalisation with certain safeguards. I have referred to the Government's manifest failure to do that and our sadness about the fact that the Government have retreated from their commitment in Committee. I therefore want to consider the current position.
We have clear evidence of substantial flouting of the law concerning the supply of alcohol to under-aged persons. I want to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North on this issue. I have considered the results of two surveys. The first, entitled "Adolescent Drinking", was commissioned by the DHSS from the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. The second, entitled "Drinking among Schoolchildren", was carried out by the schools health education unit of the Health Education Authority by the university of Exeter.
The OPCS survey discovered that 19 per cent. of 13-year-old boys, 22 per cent. of 14-year-old boys and 44 per cent. of 15-year-old boys who drink, obtained alcohol in pubs. The conclusion was that a significant minority of 13 and 14-year-old boys, a substantial minority of 15-yearold boys and the vast majority of 17-year-old boys obtain their alcohol in public houses. Although we should consider off-licences and supermarkets, the evidence commissioned by the Government suggests that, towards the upper end of the age scale, the majority of young people obtain alcohol in public houses. I could give other relevant figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North about that.

Mr. Hoyle: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for those figures. My hon. Friend's conclusion is that young people go to pubs as they get older. However, they are getting alcohol at a very young age. They are not getting it from public houses; they get it from off-licences and supermarkets. Nothing is being done about that. The crux of the matter is the question where they start their drinking. Where they get the taste really matters, because the problems lead on from there. That point is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Anderson: I understand my hon. Friend's puzzlement and the anger of licensees. The Government have failed to consider that matter in the round or to consider supermarkets and off-licences. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the findings for what they are.
The findings reveal that there is a substantial evasion of the law. They also show that there is great difficulty about enforcement of the current law, and I call in aid the Masham committee recommendations. I recommend that my colleagues read those recommendations. It is also clear that the Government introduced a proposal in Committee which covered the essential points that we were seeking to cover. The Government said that they would try to tighten the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has set out the nature of the undertaking made by the Minister in Committee. I concede that he provided


himself with a small escape window by saying that he had to clear the proposal with his colleagues and that it was open to consultation. We then received a letter that was sent out for wide consultation. In his proposed amendment to section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964, the Minister proposed that there should not be an absolute obligation on the licensee, and no reasonable person would oppose that. The Minister referred to the precedent of section 24 of the Firearms Act 1968 which has been reproduced by my hon. Friends in an amendment today.
When the Minister introduced his proposal, I am sure that he was convinced that, it was the best option available. It was the option most likely to do the job. I am also convinced that, having the advice of the civil servants and through his own substantial legal knowledge, the Minister would have surveyed all the options, including the Scottish option which the Government are now proposing. However, he has changed his position.
I am sure that the Minister will accept that the Scottish option is a substantial dilution of the original proposal. Therefore, the question arises why, having gone so much further along the road in the light of the consensus in Committee, the Minister has now retreated. We accept that the Government amendment, as proposed, is a substantial improvement on section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964 and may provide a greater deterrent for errant landlords. However, why have the Government made the change?
I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he was probably got at. Perhaps some of his elders, and those wiser than the Minister, reminded him of the Government's obligations to the brewing trade and said, "Young man, you're going too far. This is not acceptable." I pay tribute to the Minister. He was extremely courteous in Committee. He tried to be as helpful as possible and he took us into his confidence. However, we now see what by any definition is a substantial dilution of the original proposal. The House is bound to ask why that has happened.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It might help the hon. Gentleman to know that the amendment represents my considered view. I have not been got at. I am not the kind of character at whom people get.

Mr. Anderson: If that is the Minister's considered view, I remind him that in December he put before the Committee the earlier formula based on the Firearms Act 1968 and that also was his considered view. I was about to quote a little jingle, but it is probably not appropriate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall rescue the House from my hon. Friend's jingle and ask him to reflect that the Minister gave us an indication of his preferred route. He said that his preferred amendment would be one in which the licensee had to show that he had reasonable grounds to believe that a person was over the age of 18.
Whatever variation the Minister came up with, it should incorporate the principle in our amendment (a). The new clause does not fulfil the basic commitment that the Minister gave in Committee that defendants would have to show that they had reasonable grounds to believe that a person was 18.

Mr. Anderson: I accept my hon. Friend's helpful point. I have conceded to the Minister that, although his proposal is an advance on the existing law, it is a

substantial retreat from what he had originally proposed, and the reasoning that he gave in Committee for that original proposal, made when the Scottish option forumula was before him.
I am sceptical about the Scottish experience. I have already told the Minister that the Scottish formula does not go much beyond shifting the burden of proof. Essentially, if we compare the number of convictions in Scotland with that in England and Wales, we are not comparing like with like because the law is much more liberal in Scotland. The sample was only small. I think that the Minister said that there were 160 convictions in Scotland. That small sample may have resulted from other factors, such as the enforcement policy of the police force. One cannot draw any helpful conclusion from the Minister's points about the Scottish experience.
If we are to be true to the scale of the problem in Britain, our aim must be to find effective safeguards. As we know, substantial vested interests are involved. I would not have made the partisan point about the link between the Conservative party and the brewers that was made by right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). Far be it from me to make such points, although cynics might say that the right hon. Gentleman was being a little unfair in talking about the traditional and historic links—indeed, the financial links — between the brewing industry and the Conservative party. I would be the last person to make such allegations.
The Government, by their new clause, have let down the Committee. They have gone back on their pledge, and the formula that they now propose should not be accepted by the House.

Mr. Lawrence: I must first declare an interest, not only as the Member for Parliament for the brewing centre of England, Burton-on-Trent, but as the chairman of the Burton breweries charitable trust. However, I shall confine my remarks to new clauses 2 and 7.
I agree with all hon. Members who have said that alcohol abuse and under-age drinking are serious problems that must be dealt with. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and his Committee. I hope that he comes up with a substantial contribution to the reduction of those problems.
New clause 2 will do absolutely nothing to solve those problems. It will be an irritating waste of time and place some licensees at risk. Therefore, it is simply not worth the candle.
The deletion of the word "knowingly" shifts the burden from the prosecution to the licensee, to displace what, but for the defence, would be an offence of strict liability. That is not the right approach to dealing with under-age drinking.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged the removal of "knowingly" and of the defences as well. I do not think that that strict liability would work either. Sometimes, there are good reasons for having strict liability offences. Those reasons are much loved by Governments, but usually they should be resisted in the interests of civil liberty because they involve the conviction of people who have behaved blamelessly, and who do not need to have their conduct changed in any way because it was wrong.
6.45 pm
Strict liability offences cause great distress, grievance and resentment. They certainly would cause great resentment to licensees, because the consequences of a conviction for an offence of strict liability would not only be a fine. Licensees would lose their jobs because it would be difficult for them to get a licence before the licensing justices if there had been a conviction for allowing sales of alcohol to people under the age of 18. I am pleased that the Government have not gone down that strict liability road.
I do not accept new clause 2, or new clause 7—if my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will allow me to dissent from his views—first, because I do not believe that it is particularly fair or practicable to make life more difficult for licensees. Our pubs are changing. They are getting more family-oriented. We have had debates in the House about how we can best reduce crime associated with alcoholism. The licensing trade—I have been lobbied by licensees but not by the Brewers Society or by the breweries—has been trying hard to make pubs more welcoming and socially amenable places. We hope that, by encouraging families to go to public houses, there will be less violence, because there is less violence in social activities that involve the whole family.
More of such centres for decent social contact are springing up in large numbers all over the country, reviving the historic and traditional importance of the public house. Young people throughout the country, in villages, suburbs and town centres are meeting in public houses to consume soft drinks or non-alcoholic liquor. They are meeting on warm summers evenings in the new gardens in the public houses.
In the old days, we banned children from public house premises. Now we welcome young people — not necessarily children—to the non-drinking areas of public houses. Youngsters who are coming into adulthood are welcomed into pubs, provided that they treat them as reasonable, decent places in which they should not drink. In those changed circumstances, the publican is no longer behind the bar of a small pub where he can observe everything that goes on.
It is simply not practicable or fair to expect the new kind of publican in the new kind of pub to supervise every nook and cranny of his premises, as he could in old-fashioned small pubs. Even if he could, what would he find? How can one run a pub if one has for ever to go up to young people who look as if they are over 18 and ask for proof of their age? Some of them even have beards at the age of 18. The girls all look beautiful and mature over the age of 18. One cannot run a pub on the basis of continually going up to young people and saying, "Please show me some proof that you are over the age of 18." So my first objection is that in the new circumstances it is not practicable or fair to place such burdens upon publicans.
Secondly, if I may say so to my normally logical hon. Friend, there seems to be little logic in deleting the word "knowingly" in regard to sales to under-18-year-olds but retaining it for allowing the consumption of alcohol on the premises or for allowing others to sell to someone under age. If there is merit in keeping "knowingly" for those offences and not requiring the burden to pass to the publican, why does the same merit not apply to this clause? What elements are different? Why draw a distinction? Why

be illogical? The changes proposed are illogical, unfair and impracticable and will irritate licensees who will feel that they are at risk.
More important than those reasons is the fact that the proposed change is unnecessary in practice, considering how little good it is likely to do. First, it is my view, after many years of experience in the courts, that few local magistrates who have to try licensees will convict under these proposals if they would not have convicted under the law as it stands. The difference between whether in all the circumstances the licensee was so careless as to turn a blind eye to the obvious or to refrain deliberately from making inquiries, the results of which he might not care to have —which, under our law, are sufficient to prove that the licensee knew that the sale was to a person under age—and whether he exercised due diligence is almost certainly non-existent in practice.
The difference is too esoteric for a lay magistrate. It will make a lot of money for lawyers, which is not a cause that is normally attractive to my hon. Friends. But it will make no difference to the lay magistrates, who just ask themselves the simple question: has the licensee taken reasonable steps, or has he not? Whether he sells knowingly, or not knowingly but with no due diligence, seems unlikely, in practice, to make a ha'porth of difference. The magistrates will convict.
Equally, if the bench thought that the licensee had put up enough notices and had sent enough staff round to ask about people's ages to discharge the proposed defence, it would have acquitted him under existing law. So what, in practice, does my hon. Friend think the proposed change will achieve?
Secondly, it is unnecessary to introduce this change into the law because the police, if they use their powers, have a ready means of stopping a licensee from selling to youngsters who are under age. The police warn them. They say, "It has come to our attention," or "We have been drinking in this pub and we see too many youngsters being served drinks. If you do not put your house in order, we will oppose your licence at the next licensing session." That happens. That is why there are so few prosecutions. When the police warn licensees, any licensee who wants to remain in business puts his house in order. That is the best he can do. The licensee will be irritated if we try to change the law and have higher expectations of him.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, knowing that I was concerned with these matters, was good enough to write to me explaining the Government's position. Among other matters, he explained that the existing law makes it difficult to bring proceedings and secure convictions. I do not know why it will be easier to bring proceedings under the proposed changes.
My hon. Friend helpfully gave me the figures for 1986: there were 296 prosecutions and 165 convictions. I cannot think of any other branch of the criminal law where the conviction rate is so high. Generally, the acquittal rate is over 50 per cent. in all cases in magistrates courts or Crown courts where pleas of not guilty are entered. The figures given by my hon. Friend show that the conviction rate is over 50 per cent., so I do not know what he is complaining about. It seems to be as easy to get convictions under the existing law as it is in any other branch of the criminal law. So that reason which he gave in his letter scarcely seems to be justified.
As to the position in Scotland, just because there are more prosecutions and convictions I do not know that that


tells us much. Scotland is different. It is smaller; the system is different; and the police approach is different. We can learn lots of things from the Scots, but, because changes in the law in Scotland have achieved a marginally higher conviction rate, that does not necessarily show us that there has been a substantial reduction in alcohol abuse or under-age drinking. I am not convinced about that.
Of course, the licensed trade knows how concerned the Government are about sales to people under 18, which was another reason given in my hon. Friend's opening. He said that the change would bring home to the licensee the importance of the matter. Licensees know already how important it is. They do not need an insignificant, irritating change in the law to bring home what is desperately important to them if they are not to lose their jobs. The trade has no wish to offend against the law. Brewers do their best to get rid of bad licensees.
When there is no evidence of a wholesale betrayal of responsibility by licensees, and when the proposals are so illogical, unfair and unnecessary, why should we bother about changes which will only irritate a decent group in society who are doing a job for which we all have much regard?
I come back to the point that I made at the beginning. The Government's proposal is an irritating waste of time. We should spend more time implementing some of the other recommendations of the Masham report. There will also be excellent recommendations which would do something about alcohol abuse and under-age drinking which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Lord President will produce in due course.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The biggest tragedy today is alcoholism among the young. Sadly, once they are hooked they are all too often hooked for life. Much as I dislike smoking among the young — I am always getting at my children about it — drinking is infinitely more serious. It changes the character of the person. Years ago I used to practise in the divorce court. I never had a client divorcing a partner for smoking, but I had many who did so because of drinking and the conduct that flowed from it.
The peak age of delinquency is 15. I believe that much crime at that age is alcohol-induced. Drinking leads to football hooliganism, to school truancy and to many of the sex offences committed by the young. Mugging and many forms of crime are committed to get money to buy drink. It is vital to take every possible step to curb this scourge. Therefore, I am sorry that the Government have greatly weakened the prospect of enforcing the law on under-age drinking by the inclusion of subsection 3(b). I much prefer the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend the Minister. I was giving evidence to a Select Committee from 5 o'clock until 6 o'clock, which is why I missed the earlier part of the debate.
I think that we can easily lose focus and come to believe that drinking in pubs is conterminous with consuming alcohol. That certainly is not the case. To bring in an absolute offence which the accused person has to prove his way out of does not deal with the problem, because so much of the problem is not in public houses anyway.
It is entirely healthy that young people should get into the habit of going to public houses before they can legally

consume alcohol. They can get into the habit of going with their parents, drinking soft drinks and eating meals so that they come to associate going to pubs with enjoying themselves without consuming alcohol rather than, at the age of 18, suddenly being able to go to pubs and drink alcohol.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore put pressure on his friends in the brewing industry to reduce the price of non-alcoholic drinks in pubs. The mark-up rate of such drinks is a scandal, and it must be one of the reasons why so many young people drink beer. It is cheaper than Coca-Cola.

7 pm

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the public interest is served by the opposite approach. There is now at least as good a profit margin on soft drinks as on alcohol. Once upon a time it paid a licensee to push alcohol rather than soft drinks, but I understand that the profit margin on soft drinks is now such that there is no incentive to the landlord to push alcoholic drinks any more.
We spend much time in the House concentrating on inner cities, but, in rural areas, it is in public houses that young people meet. Most days of the week, there is no other place for them to meet. In small villages, there is no youth club and there is often no public transport, so young people must meet in the pub or not meet other young people.
I see no reason, because of the undoubted problem of under-age consumption of alcohol, to produce an injustice so that licensees, acting in good faith, can easily be penalised. It is not possible to prove a negative. The one person who knows that an offence is being committed is the person who buys the alcohol when under age. That is the person who ought to be prosecuted far more frequently and punished much more severely. That is the person who knows without any doubt that an offence is being committed.
Young people who are just over 18 resent bitterly any implication that they are what are termed children. It is to them insulting to be asked whether they are over 18. If they are under 18 and they say that they are over 18, there is no way in which the landlord can tackle that person unless he or she knows that young person personally.
I cannot tell what age people are. It is a problem from the age of about 15. We have to ask whether they are wearing make-up, what sort of clothes they are wearing and, as has been suggested, whether they have a beard. There is a problem unless, as some licensees recommend, we have indentity cards, but that is not a course of action that I recommend.
My hon. Friend the Minister and the police should concentrate far more on the person who undeniably and knowingly commits an offence and, by so doing, is not just putting the licensee's livelihood at risk, but putting the roof over his head at risk. The pub is his home and his family's home as well in the representative case. In villages especially, it is a caricature of a pub to represent it merely as somewhere where alcohol is sold. People who know the very large number of good pubs would not so categorise it.
In much of the area that I represent, the pub is the old persons' club, in effect. An old person will drink perhaps half a pint of beer in the whole evening and play whatever the local games are. They vary from one part of the


country to another. They have heat and company at the expense of the licensee, who does not chase them out, because that is part of the atmosphere of the public house.
In some of the areas that I represent, when there is a bad winter, I have known it not to be exceptional but almost to be expected that the licensee provides free meals twice a day for old people who live in their bungalows when, owing to the snow, they cannot get out and buy their normal supplies. Nobody regards that as an act of sainthood. Rather, it is regarded as just being a good neighbour and a good publican in an area of mutual support, which many of our villages are.

Mrs. Llin Golding: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What has this to do with the point under discussion?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the hon. Lady listens, she will learn, to her advantage. What is under discussion is whether the law should be left as it is—when an offence is committed if the licensee knowingly sells alcohol to a person who is under age, or whether the balance of proof should be altered so that the full weight of the law falls, as I believe it should, on the person who knowingly commits an offence, who is the person who buys the drink, and we do not put, the great expense of defending him or herself someone who, in the vast majority of cases, does not know and cannot know. That is the dilemma for the licensee, however conscientious and however good.
If, out of what I can call only terror tactics, licensees are prosecuted when they have not sold drink with a guilty mind and knowingly and are ruined, the only way in which licensees will be able to protect their livelihood will be by chasing young people out into the street. That will include some who are over 18, because licensees will not be absolutely certain that they are over 18. I do not believe that we will then have a healthier society. Such people will be able to buy all the liquor they want, as they do at the moment, from off-licences, where the control is very much less. They will then drink on street corners, in cars, out in the open and in the other places which, in the real world, exist and are used.
That is why I believe that the existing law, though not perfect, needs tightening in the direction of more prosecutions and more penalties for those who commit an offence knowingly — the purchasers — rather than tinkering, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is a distinguished silk, advised the House, for purely cosmetic purposes in such a manner that innocent licensees will inevitably be caught out by a few rogues.

Mr. Couchman: As ever, I shall declare my interest, which is as a multiple licensee operating a small company which has the tenancies of five public houses in London. I do that because I speak with some knowledge and experience of enforcing the present law.
I welcome the recommendations of the committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. I believe that all responsible licensees will welcome those recommendations. Licensees generally do not want under-age drinkers in their pubs. They are, frankly, a pain in the backside. They threaten the livelihood and the licence of the licensee, and the roof over his head. Enforcing the law with under-age drinkers is

difficult, as many hon. Members have already said. Underage drinkers, and those just turned 18, become aggressive and noisy and they upset older and more mature customers. No one honestly likes the young trade.
So far, no one has mentioned the fact that 14-year-olds may already enter public houses, although not to drink. However, because of the difficulty in preventing those over 14 from drinking once they enter public houses, or from being bought drinks by other people — acknowledging that to be an offence—many publicans decide that it is better to enforce a no-under-18s rule and, even now, a nounder-21s rule in many public houses in London.
I spent four years running a large discotheque public house. Three nights a week, I used to stand at the door and try to determine who was and who was not over 18, because we had a no-under-18s rule. If, in particular, the young girls seek to deceive, with make-up and dress, they will succeed many times. We asked for birth certificates. They produced those of their older sisters.
We have talked about identity cards. I share the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about identity cards, but the only sure and certain way of being able to enforce the law would be to issue photo-identity cards, of the type that we, as Members of the House, carry, and ones that carry a date of birth.
Like many other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I believe that the chief source of supply of drink to those under 18, and particularly those substantially under 18, is the off-licence trade. Those outlets are much less well controlled. There is no outlet in this country that is as heavily constrained and controlled as the public house.
On a number of occasions I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) speak on the subject of under-age drinking, and I know that he has particular feelings about the matter. However, what changes at 18? One day, one is a day off 18 and is not allowed to drink in a public house, and the next day one is 18 and suddenly becomes able to do so. I am enthusiastic about the possibility of youngsters being introduced to drink in a slow and controlled manner, perhaps by their parents, so that when they do become 18, they drink in a public house in a more mature way.
A happy experiment is the recent opening in Brixham in Devon of a pub called the Minnows Arms, which is open to serve strictly non-alcoholic beers, wines and cocktails to children between the ages of 11 and 16. Adults will be banned from the pub, which will serve from 6.30 pm to 9 pm. That is a sensible experiment, which tries to introduce young people to the environment of the public house without the dangers of under-age drinking. There are many sides to the argument.
I am apprehensive, as I am sure many of my fellow licensees are, about the new clause, because it shifts the balance, as my hon. Friend the Minister admitted, from a person being innocent until proven guilty to that person being guilty until proved innocent, and that is contrary to natural justice. It is a fearsome weapon in the hands of anti-drink policemen who have the responsibility of enforcing the licensing laws in their area. There are more of those than the public perceives.
I hope that my hon. Friend will think again about introducing the clause. If he will not do so, I should prefer the House to accept the Government new clause, rather than the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member


for Castle Point or amendment (a). I hope that, even at this late stage, my hon. Friend the Minister will say that the Government will think again about whether they have the balance right.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) emphasises that this has been a vigorous debate. Two competing points of view have been presented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said that we have not done anything, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said that we have placed a fearsome weapon in the hands of the police. My view is that we have followed a careful road down the middle and have got it about right.
We want to be clear that we are talking about a major change in the law. If the new clause is accepted, the prosecution will no longer have to prove the element of knowing, there being prima facie evidence of an offence at the moment of the sale to the under-age person. At that moment, it will be open to the prosecution to commence proceedings. That is a dramatic change and I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that it is an important step in the direction to which he is pointing.
The question then is whether it should be an absolute offence in the true sense—that is, one to which there should be no defence — or whether there should be a defence. The common view in the Chamber has been that there should be a defence. Therefore, the essential dispute is about the nature of the defence. I willingly acknowledge and concede that in Committee I pointed to the firearms model on a number of occasions as one that struck me as attractive in the context of what we are doing. However, what I have brought to the House is something different. Therefore, it is fair to ask, "Why is there a difference?" The answer is that I changed my mind, and I shall explain why.
In the case of the sale of a firearm, the position is different in two major respects. First, the sale of the firearm is perhaps a more serious and grave act than the sale of a drink. That is a qualitative judgment, but it is mine. Secondly, the sale of a firearm is a more leisurely transaction than is the sale of a drink at a bar counter. When one is selling a firearm, one can make the kind of inquiry which it is not reasonable to require of licensees at a bar. Therefore, there is a difference.
If one uses the same language in the context of a drink offence as is used in the context of a firearms offence, one may find the courts applying precisely the same tests and asking licensees to adopt the same standards. I have been persuaded that that would be wrong. It is not a question of being got at. It is a question of being persuaded, and this is the view that I offer to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I see other possibilities than the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968. However, in Committee the Minister did not commit himself to that procedure. He was careful to say that he believed that there should be a defence whereby the seller of the drink had to prove that he had reasonable grounds for the belief that the person was over the age of 18. Will the Minister comment on our amendment, because that allows for a defence? It allows for the defence that the licensee had good reason to believe that the person was over 18. Would that not satisfy the criterion that the Minister was trying to find in Committee?

Mr. Hogg: That is a perfectly logical and sensible position for the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to adopt. It is a question of balance. The hon. Lady is, in effect — although not quite — describing the firearms defence. For the reasons that I have outlined, I think that the firearms defence imposes too high a standard on licensees. I accept that it is a matter of judgment. I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady's position is illogical, untenable or unsustainable, but I think that it places too heavy a burden on licensees.
I am encouraged in this matter by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), because, as the House will appreciate, he has the advantage of being a Scots lawyer and has direct knowledge of the way in which the Scots have been using the legislation in Scotland. His remarks were important. He said that the legislation had resulted in more convictions but that it had not enabled landlords to get off on technicalities and that the nature of the defence had not proved obstructive in bringing prosecutions in proper cases.
In the end, it is a matter of balance. I offer the judgment that the balance in the new clause is the correct one.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 47.

Division No. 164]
[7.21 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Cash, William


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Allason, Rupert
Chope, Christopher


Alton, David
Churchill, Mr


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Cope, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Benyon, W.
Devlin, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Maker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Favell, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fearn, Ronald


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Franks, Cecil


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Gow, Ian






Gower, Sir Raymond
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Harris, David
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Hayward, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howard, Michael
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Price, Sir David


Howells, Geraint
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redwood, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Kennedy, Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shersby, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lil ley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stokes, John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacGregor, John
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thorne, Neil





Thornton, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trippier, David
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wolfson, Mark


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Hon William
Woodcock, Mike


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wallace, James



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walters, Dennis
Mr. Richard Ryder and


Ward, John
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)



NOES


Anderson, Donald
McWilliam, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barron, Kevin
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Morgan, Rhodri


Caborn, Richard
Morley, Elliott


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Mullin, Chris


Corbyn, Jeremy
Murphy, Paul


Crowther, Stan
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cummings, J.
Pike, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dalyell, Tarn
Robertson, George


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rowlands, Ted


Dixon, Don
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Short, Clare


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Foster, Derek
Turner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wilson, Brian


Hinchliffe, David
Winnick, David


Illsley, Eric



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sir Bernard Braine and


McFall, John
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop.


McNamara, Kevin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed: (a), in new clause 2, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert—
'(b) that he had good reason to believe that the person was over eighteen".—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 66, Noes 291.

Division No. 165]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Alton, David
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Barron, Kevin
Fearn, Ronald


Beggs, Roy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Foster, Derek


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Crowther, Stan
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Cummings, J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tarn
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken






McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Robertson, George


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliott
Wallace, James


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes


Pike, Peter
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Dennis Turner.


Richardson, Ms Jo



NOES


Adley, Robert
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkinson, David
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bendall, Vivian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butcher, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cran, James
Hill, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hind, Kenneth


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Holt, Richard





Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raffan, Keith


Howells, Geraint
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irving, Charles
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kennedy, Charles
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shersby, Michael


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Speed, Keith


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lilley, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stevens, Lewis


MacGregor, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stokes, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Summerson, Hugo


Major, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Neil


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walden, George


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Parry, Robert
Wheeler, John


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Whitney, Ray


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Pawsey, James
Wigley, Dafydd






Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Wilshire, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Woodcock, Mike

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

New clause 3

PROHIBITION OF UNSUPERVISED OFF-SALES BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN

"The following clause shall be inserted after section 171 of the principal Act—
171A.—(1) In any premises which are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises only or any off-sales department of on-licensed premises, the holder of the licence shall not allow a person under eighteen to make any sale of such liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the holder of the licence or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) of this section to an off-sales department of on-licensed premises is a reference to any part of premises for which a justices' on-licence has been granted which is set aside for use only for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.". — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following; amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 6, leave out from 'liquor' to end of line 9.
Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in last line, leave out 'level 1' and insert 'level 3'.

New clause 6—Under-age sales—

'(1) In section 170(1) of the principal Act, for the words from "on a first conviction" to the end there shall be substituted the words "to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale".
(2) The following section shall be inserted after section 171 of the principal Act—

171A. No person under the age of 18 employed in premises in respect of which an off licence has been granted shall be permitted to sell intoxicating liquor. The holder of the licence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.".'.

Mr. Hogg: New clause 3 is part of our response to the problem of under-age drinking.
The Masham report expressed the desire that the law regarding off-licences should be changed so that persons under the age of 18 who are selling alcohol should at least be supervised when they do so. I agree with that proposition because when people under the age of 18 are selling alcohol in off-licences there is an increased danger that they will sell to under-age persons or that they may sell to somebody who is already intoxicated. The purpose of the new clause is to impose an obligation that each sale should be supervised by somebody over the age of 18.

Sir Dudley Smith: I am not trying to catch my hon. Friend out; this is a genuine inquiry. Is it a fact that the people who assist in public houses must be over the age of 18?

Mr. Hogg: Yes. Under-age persons may not assist in public houses.
It has been discussed whether we should put a total prohibition on persons under the age of 18 selling alcohol in off-licences. I would not commend that to the House because I believe that that would affect the ability of such persons to obtain employment in the retail sector. I believe that that would an undesirable state of affairs.
I commend the new clause to the House on the basis that it is the proper solution to the problem and will not have the adverse consequences to which I have just referred.

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be brief. The purpose of new clause 6 is to remove an absurd anomaly in the law whereby young people under 18 are allowed to sell in supermarkets and elsewhere a product which they are not legally permitted to buy. In promoting greater consistency in the law, my new clause 6 is entirely in line with what is described as being a main aim of the Bill.
I am glad that in tabling their new clause the Government have moved from their untenable position in Committee where they refused to concede to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends that allowing sales of alcohol by under-18s could even be regarded as an anomaly. If I may say so in all humility, I believe that my new clause 6 is superior to that tabled by the Government in that it has greater clarity, straightforwardness and practicality.
The Home Office working group on young people and alcohol under the chairmanship of Baroness Masham briefly examined the issue of under-age sales, and its recommendations prompted this new clause. The Justices' Clerks Society has also expressed its dislike of the anomaly of under-age sales and wishes to see it removed. The Masham committee recognised that allowing sales of alcohol by young people under the legal age was an anomaly which might have undesirable consequences. As the committee pointed out, it may be difficult for a 16-year-old to challenge a 17-year-old who seeks to buy alcohol, and this anomaly in the law may help to undermine other legal controls on under-age drinking. I am sure that the House will recognise the truth of that, including my hon. Friends who strongly support extended drinking hours.
One aspect of the problem not yet mentioned is that not all supermarkets have separate drinks departments but, as was observed recently by the Professional Advisory Committee on Alcohol for Scotland, some
display alcohol openly on shelves amongst other consumer goods, thereby placing the supervision of sales on the shoulders of the busy check-out girls",
who may themselves be under age. The Committee continued:
It is anomalous that whilst it is illegal to employ anyone under the age of 18 in a public bar or licensed canteen, no such restriction is in force in the case of off-licensed premises or supermarkets. If legislation to restrict the sale of alcohol to a separate counter were included, it could also be enacted that staff on such a counter are subject to the same age restrictions as those which apply in public bars".
That is an eminently sensible argument, but it would be equally sensible to approach the problem from the


opposite direction by enacting new clause 6 precisely in order to give supermarkets a strong incentive to create separate drinks departments.
The argument for my new clause is straightforward and I need not detain the House much longer. The Masham committee stated the crucial points in paragraph 147 of its report, which reads:
It is significant that off-licences are cited as a major source of alcohol for teenagers; and it is equally significant that some major retailers insist that staff under the age of 18 may not authorise off-sales, since they recognise the difficulties a 16 or 17-year-old may have in enforcing the law.
If responsible retailers are already imposing their own prohibition on under-age sales, surely this is an instance where the law should follow the example already set by the responsible to curtail the activities of the less responsible. Moreover, the example of responsible retailers shows that any practical difficulties involved in enforcing an 18-or-over rule cannot be insuperable.
On the question of practicability, the Government's proposal, perhaps contrary to first impressions, is inferior to my new clause 6. As I understand the Government's proposal, it is that each sale of alcohol must be specifically supervised by the licensee or his agent over the age of 18. The difficulty is in imagining how exactly this will be managed in a busy supermarket at peak shopping time. Those who do their own shopping, as I do, will readily recognise the truth of that. The sheer inconvenience of an under-age sales assistant having to call over the licensee or his adult agent each time a bottle or can of alcohol appears among a customer's purchases will surely lead either to impossible delays or, to avoid such delays, the law being widely disregarded.
It will be far better to agree now to a clear-cut, simple measure which can be enforced. My hon. Friend the Minister has the opportunity to do that, and I recommend new clause 6 to the House.

Mrs. Golding: It is apparent from new clause 3 that the Minister does not know and does not care about the problems facing many people on housing estates and in other areas where sales from off-licences cause young people to gather together to drink alcohol obtained from those off-licences.
Does not the Minister know of the time spent by the police in moving youngsters on? Is he not aware of the abuse of local people, and of the threats and damage to their property? If the Minister had my postbag, he would know of the anger felt by many decent people about the apparent lack of control of off-licence sales. What is his answer to those people? It is new clause 3, which continues to allow young people under the age of 18 to sell drinks in off-licences.
The new clause states:
the holder of the licence shall not allow a person under eighteen to make any sale of such liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the holder of the licence or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf
But what does that mean? What does "specifically" mean? The dictionary meaning is "definitely", "particularly", "not generally or vaguely". Does that mean that permission must be given for every individual transaction?
If so, let us consider what a sale is. It is the presenting, choosing, advising, obtaining from the cellar or shelf, wrapping and taking of money. All that is involved. Does the clause mean gaining approval for every one of those actions for every individual sale? If so, it cannot be practical in a busy off-licence.
Is the law enforceable? If not, it should not become law. If the new clause means that if the holder of the licence gives his approval a 16-year-old can be employed and the supervision is much less, that is wholly unacceptable. It does nothing to prevent the intimidation of a young salesman by less desirable elements in his age group to persuade him, by threats, to sell them alcohol, knowing them to be under-age.
The Government have had the opportunity in this Bill to prohibit young people under 18 from serving in off-licences. That they have not taken this opportunity shows once again that they are not concerned about young people and alcohol abuse. The control of the sale of alcohol is for adults; it is not for children. It is time that the Government and the House recognised that, and they should accept amendment (a).

8 pm

Mr. Garry Waller: I wish to raise two points relating to new clause 3. First, I am concerned about the words "specifically approved". Despite the use of the word "specifically", it is a vague term. My hon. Friend the Minister may say that these words will have to be interpreted by the courts if a dispute arises about what they mean. I am not in the business of providing work for lawyers and I wish to provide more specific wording so that everyone can be clear about the meaning.
In a chemist's shop, for example, when a preparation is sold, the assistant must hold up the item so that the pharmacist can specifically approve it. Unfortunately, the situation in most supermarkets is not as it is in branches of Boots. For example, in modern retailing, it is frequent practice for sales to take place by means of a laser scanner. The assistant need not press any buttons, but simply moves the items, including perhaps a bottle of spirits, under the scanner, so that the price is computed automatically. It would be helpful to know how such a problem could be tackled by the words "specifically approved". Would it be necessary for the assistant to ring a bell every time—a practice already operated by many responsible retailers?
Secondly, is it right that there should be no defence to a charge under this provision if, through no fault of the licensee, a sale is made by someone under 18? For example, a young person may lie about his or her age. He or she may go to some trouble to give the impression to the licensee that he or she is over 18. The licensee may have no reason to think that the young person has lied and is under 18. As the clause stands, the licensee would have no defence, yet the person who had lied about his or her age and made the sale would have committed no offence. Should there not be a defence that the licensee had used due diligence and was, therefore, not at fault?
As a further example, the person who makes the sale may disobey the rule laid down by his or her employer. The young person may be in a hurry and the supervisor, who is over 18, may be some distance away as a queue builds up at the check-out desk. The young person may make the sale, without the approval of the person over 18. Again, the check-out girl or boy has not broken the law under the provisions of the new clause.
As the new clause stands, the licensee must carry the can, although he may have gone to great trouble to impress on the check-out assistant that the law must be obeyed. Should there not be a defence, if the licensee has used as much diligence as is humanly possible to prevent


an offence taking place? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to enlighten me on that point, before we go any further.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). It is important to consider the new clause closely. An offence occurs only if the licence-holder allows a person under 18 to make a sale unsupervised. If the person under 18 makes a sale which is not allowed, and therefore acts contrary to the instructions which he has been given, the licence-holder is not committing an offence, because he has not allowed the sale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley asked whether there should be a defence when the employee lies about his age. Perhaps we are piling difficulty upon difficulty, because, in most cases, an employer would want to find out the age of an employee and would take positive steps to do so. With great respect to my hon. Friend, this difficulty may not occur.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) asks that we should adopt one of two alternatives—that there should be either a shop within a shop or a prohibition on the sale of alcohol in off-licences by those under 18. I ask my right hon. Friend not to push the latter proposition to a Division, because it would be immensely damaging to the employment prospects of those under 18. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding).

Mr. Tony Favell: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment.
At one stage, I was attracted by the concept of a shop within a shop, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, but it would be unduly burdensome on small retail shops and it would be difficult to differentiate in law between a supermarket, where it might be possible to implement such a proposal and a small corner shop, where it would not easily be possible.

Mr. Favell: In respect of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), that each sale must be specifically approved, does my hon. Friend the Minister anticipate that it will be impossible for a sale of liquor to be made on off-licence premises unless somebody over 18 is present?

Mr. Hogg: That is my conclusion and that is what we intend. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Transfer of powers with respect to general orders of exemption in London

'In section 74(6) of the principal Act (discharge of power to make exemption orders in City of London and metropolitan police district)—

(a) after the word "district", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "subsection (4) of"; and
(b) for the word "references", there shall be substituted, in the first place where it occurs, the words, "the reference" and in the second and third places where it occurs, the words "a reference".'. — [Mr.Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a rather curious and narrow clause which will commend itself to the House and, therefore, I shall deal with it briefly. General orders of extension are, except in London, dealt with by justices. In London, they are dealt with by the two commissioners of police. There does not appear to be a good reason why the two commissioners of police in London should deal with the general orders of exemption. They do not want to continue to do so and justices are willing to undertake the burden. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agree to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

SALES TO OR BY PERSONS UNDER 18 OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON WHOLESALE PREMISES

'The following section shall be inserted after section 181 of the principal Act—
Sales to or by persons under 18 of intoxicating liquor on wholesale premises.
181A.—(1) In any premises from which he deals wholesale the wholesaler or his servant shall not sell intoxicating liquor to a person under eighteen.
(2) In any premises from which he deals wholesale the wholesaler shall not allow a person under eighteen to make any sale of intoxicating liquor unless the sale has been specifically approved by the wholesaler or by a person of or over the age of eighteen acting on his behalf.
(3) A person under eighteen shall not in premises from which intoxicating liquor is dealt in wholesale buy or attempt to buy such liquor.
(4) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) of this section.

(a) where the person charged is charged by reason of his own act, it shall be a defence for him to prove—

(i) that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection; or
(ii) that he had no reason to suspect that the other person was under eighteen; and

(b) where the person charged is charged by reason of the act of some other person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence under that subsection.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
(7) In this section "wholesaler" and "wholesale" have the same meaning as in section 4 of the Alcoholic' Liquor Duties Act 1979.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 10, leave out from 'liquor' to end of line 12.
Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—
'(ii) that he had good reason to believe that the other person was over eighteen; and'.

Mr. Hogg: This is yet a further example of the Government's intention to meet the problem of under-age drinking. We seek to introduce further restrictions on the sale of alcohol to and by young persons. We are applying


to wholesalers the same restrictions on the sale of alcohol to and by 18-year-olds as are currently applied to on and off-licence premises. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We support the new clause and its addition to the Bill. However, I suspect that few people will be affected by it. It is unlikely that the majority of people under 18 purchase liquor in bulk from wholesale premises. Nevertheless, we welcome it, and the proposal was recommended by the Masham Committee.
I shall ask the Minister one or two minor questions about the new clause, because we intended to move an amendment that would omit the necessity for the sale to be specifically approved by a wholesaler, which would be an absolute barrier to any sales in any circumstances by people under the age of 18.
We believe that there should be no difficulty in finding someone over the age of 18 in wholesale premises to make those sales. I ask the Minister to consider that point and possibly to amend the Bill in another place.
My other point concerns a recommendation in the Masham report that is connected with the point about wholesale premises. The Masham committee recommended that this provision should be extended to registered clubs. It was thought that it might be necessary to give the police the right to enter such premises, and I can foresee difficulties in that regard. That may be why the Minister left that section out of the amendment, but I should be grateful if he would give his feelings and ideas, because it also may need to be the subject of an amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Two points have been raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor); the first relates to clubs. I prefer to be candid with the House, and I usually am—that implies that on occasions I am not. I shrink from the concept of applying the licensing law to clubs. If we were to start applying it to clubs, we should open a Pandora's box which would probably prevent the passage of the Bill. We should not change the law relating to clubs by a side wind. If we want to do so, we must do it in a Bill primarily designed for clubs.
With regard to the hon. Lady's other point, I have no doubt that it will be possible to find many people over the age of 18 who are willing to sell in wholesale premises. If we were to adopt the hon. Lady's suggestion, we would necessarily exclude those under the age of 18. I do not wish to do so, because of its impact on their employability.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

COACH SERVICES

`In section 199(d) of the principal Act, for the words "or railway passenger vehicle" there shall be substituted the words "railway passenger vehicle or advertised, timetabled road passenger coach service with serving staff.".'.—[Mr. Roger King.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roger King: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to bring up to date the position of a new branch of transportation—inter-city

road passenger coach services—which is left out in the cold, in that it is unable to offer for sale alocholic refreshment on its vehicles.
I have looked at section 199(d) of the principal Act to see whether exemption from the licensing laws enjoyed by railways, aircraft and ships could be extended to road passenger vehicles on scheduled services with staff on board.
8.15 pm
One of the greatest successes of the Government since 1979 has been their policy of deregulation. The passenger coach industry was one of the first to be deregulated. It has enjoyed extraordinary success as it has developed into a formidable system, with thousands of services being provided throughout the length and breadth of the country.
When the principal Act was devised in 1964, this type of service did not exist. Coach services were in their infancy and were not integrated into a national system. But now they are, and they can be seen on our roads system, operating to the requirements of the passengers whom they serve.
It is a national system; it is sophisticated and respectable. It offers a highly competitive service compared with other modes of transport. It has been sufficiently competitive to force the railways and airlines into competition. In turn, they have reflected, with their improved services, the greater desire of customers to use them.
Our legislation has opened up the service of road transport to a wide new market. Although coach services cannot compete directly on time, they offer good comfort and a much cheaper service. The latest coaches are not remotely like the traditional football charabancs of the past. They are very sophisticated vehicles, with double-deck construction, air conditioning, aircraft-style seats, video cassette machines, toilets and hostess services. Such service has transformed the principle of coach services. The customer has the highest level of comfort on board, and food is also available.
Coach services at present are denied the opportunity to sell alcoholic refreshment, which should be put right. One can take drink on board the coach and the operator can give drink away. There is no reason why coach operators should not be allowed to sell drinks on their vehicles. Other modes of transport are allowed to do so.
I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister to explain why this new clause should be agreeable to him. He has been kind enough to reply, and it seems that there are one or two obstacles that the Home Office and certainly the police find unacceptable. First, there is the worry about football hooliganism. We all agree that we should combat the evils of football hooliganism, which often arises as a direct result of excessive alcoholic refreshment. That problem has not been created by intercity scheduled coach services any more than by inter-city rail services. If we are to ban the consumption of alcohol on a scheduled coach, we must ban alcohol on a scheduled train. It is often going to the same place as an ordinary road coach. To say that a coach operator, operating a timetable scheduled service, attracts football hooliganism is to say that British Rail suffers from the same problem, which it does not.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is not most football hooliganism caused by young louts taking drink on board? I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend, but would there not be the same problem?

Mr. King: Scheduled inter-city coach services have been with us for a number of years. There is no evidence that football supporters use those services. It is a scheduled service travelling from point A to point B, not to football grounds. However, the problem might occur with private coach operators. The Government have been keen to eliminate that problem by extra policing at football grounds. The problem cannot be laid at the door of scheduled coach services. If it were, it would have been self-evident in the services already provided.
The Home Office is equally worried about an inebriated passenger on a coach presenting a danger to the driver — hitting him on the head and causing an accident. However, that could happen if he takes his own alcohol on board. The provision of a hostess or steward on the coach would surely eliminate that possibility. In any case, that can happen on a train. The new sprinter trains have alcohol available on them, so it would be easy for an inebriated customer to walk up to the cab, force the door open and accost the driver. That does not happen, so that argument does not stand up.
It is argued that it would create confusion among continental coach operators who see drinks being provided on one type of coach and wonder why they are unable to provide them. If one travels in any country, one should acquaint oneself with the local laws of the land. I see no difficulty in a foreign operator understanding the difference between his tour operation and a scheduled inter-city coach service.
I shall not press the new clause, because I understand that there are problems, but it is worthy of further examination, with a view to including it in forthcoming legislation. The argument that the new clause might attract other amendments to the Bill does not hold water. We are talking about one element of public transport which is denied the opportunity to compete in the way allowed to other transportation modes.
A train will leave Birmingham and travel towards London and a scheduled coach will do the same, travelling on the M1. For three miles they will travel side by side, offering exactly the same services. They are after the same market. One is allowed to sell alcoholic refreshment when it feels like it and the other is denied that opportunity. As our attitude to travel changes, our attitude to the law should change as well. I hope that, in any future revision of our licensing laws, the Government will look carefully at this proposal. There are not many passenger coach operators, but they operate throughout the country with advertised scheduled services. I hope that the Government will allow them to operate on equal terms with operators of other modes of transport.

Sir Bernard Braine: I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), for whom I have great affection, but this is a dangerous proposition. There is enough trouble on trains now from people who consume too much liquor, but at least passengers have the opportunity to move down the train. Such movement is impossible on a coach.
There is a growing tendency—my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield seems to think that the law should

be brought into line with this growing tendency—for more and more drinking to take place in public, outside public houses and clubs. One sees this disgraceful situation in any London tube station, but especially the large ones. There are used lager cans on the platform and the rail tracks. The abuse is growing every week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said that coach travellers take their liquor aboard. Of course they do. That is a well-known fact. They take crates of it aboard. I have just received a letter from one of my constituents, which states:
My wife and I are the proprietors of a seasonal business in Southend on the front. Every year is getting worse as far as behavioural problems with language, shoplifting, fighting and sexual abuse, all drink related. My wife is verbally abused, and I myself last year had to call the police several times to our premises. I am 47 years of age and am now at the age when I feel threatened and feel that we can no longer enjoy a happy successful occupation in my trade.
My constituent refers in particular to the coach trade. He tells how people come down in coaches, flock into the pubs and, after the pubs close,
for the next 3 or 4 hours wander round town carrying packs of beer or whole bottles of spirit or cider. They come into our shop and try to steal what they can, and if we object they are abusive, foul-mouthed and dangerous. Nine times out of ten, these coach parties are drunk when they hit town and go from bad to worse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield made his case moderately and eloquently, but I beg the House not to encourage such behaviour and to compare the coach trade with the railway trade. I would have liquor banned on the railways as well. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned us more than once that if we wish to preserve the health of our young people, we may have to drink less rather than more. The object of the Bill, and of all the proposals along those lines which provide for longer hours, is to make the consumption of alcohol easier.
There is a price to be paid. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—I do not know whether hon. Members picked it up, but they should have done—said that it is a well-known fact, established all over the world, that with the increase in the consumption of alcohol there is an automatic increase in the harm done. I make a plea for restraint. That is what the law should observe. I hope that the House will reject this preposterous proposal.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On the face of it, this is quite an attractive measure. It has been attractively argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). However, I must say, although for slightly different reasons from those advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), that I am not persuaded of the merits of the new clause.
There are substantially three reasons for that. First, it could give rise to control problems on coaches. It seems to me that passengers on a coach have too ready access to the driver and that is a distinction between coaches and, for example, trains. Secondly, I suspect that the measure would be used by football supporters, at least sometimes, and that would tend to get around the control imposed by the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985. Those two considerations have influenced the police to oppose this suggestion. Thirdly, I have some sympathy with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point that a passenger on a coach cannot move away from a person drinking in the same way as a passenger on a train. That distinction needs to be noted.
I should like to be candid, once again. I am against Christmas trees of Bills. I have a feeling that if I were to yield on the new clause, I might find it more difficult to maintain the purity of the Bill that hitherto we have been able to establish. For those reasons, I do not commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Roger King: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point made no distinction between the tour tripper going to the seaside on a charabanc and the passenger on inter-city scheduled coach services. There are wide differences, and the two are not to be compared. Of course, there are always problems with tour trippers who go out for the day and with football supporters.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also made a mistake, if I may use that expression, in suggesting that if drink wereallowed on board an inter-city roadcoach it would attract football supporters. They can use the coaches now and bring their alcohol on board, but there is no evidence that they have done so. By the same token, why is British Rail allowed to run its scheduled Inter-City services to those cities to which football supporters are going, with full drink and refreshment facilities available, but coaches are not?
The logic is that, if drink is not allowed on the road coaches, it cannot be allowed on the rail system. As for moving away from a person who is drinking, my experience is that it is difficult to do that if the train is crowded. During my frequent rail travel I do not see many instances of excess alcohol consumption. The advantage the coach would have is that an attendant would be visible and present on the same deck as all the passengers. However, I understand what my hon. Friend has said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

MONITORING

`The following section shall be inserted after section 88 of the principal Act—
88A. The Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Transport shall monitor the effects of changes in licensing hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in relation to public order, road safety and public health in England and Wales.".'.—[Dr. Moonie]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I feel marginally—I regret to say, only marginally—warmer towards the Bill than I did on Second Reading and in Committee. It still lacks several essential components, especially in the clause on the monitoring of its effect. It is sad that someone must move a new clause asking the Departments involved to monitor the effects of the changes. Unfortunately, they do not do that in any constructive way, and perhaps hon. Members agree that they should.
The new clause would ensure that the Departments discharged the function that they should, and monitored the effects of this major change—despite the Minister's having called it a minor one—in the licensing laws. The

clause in the Bill involves an increase in the time available for the consumption of alcohol on weekdays by 30 per cent., which is a major change. All changes in the law, in price or in the length of time in which there is access to alcohol produce changes in consumption. That has been proved by countless examples that have been quoted earlier in the debate, and I do not propose to go over them again, but merely to mention other countries in which there have been changes, such as Canada, Australia—there have been changes state by state there — and Finland, in which there is interesting parallel of the laws having been tightened up, followed by a fall in problems and consumption, and then liberalised, followed by a corresponding rise.
Scotland has been mentioned at length in support of the Bill. There was evidence after the Clayson proposals were implemented that the consumption of alcohol fell there. However, it has been clearly demonstrated that that fall was spurious; it was caused by other factors and not by the change in licensing laws.
The need for monitoring has, if anything, been underlined by the Scottish experience, by the lack of data on which we can rely and by the ambiguity of the statistics quoted at such great length—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was one of the recommendations of the Clayson committee that there should be monitoring such as he is now suggesting?

Dr. Moonie: I am indeed. Again, it is a sad comment on the state of affairs in Scotland that there has not been adquate monitoring of the effects of the proposals, nor has there been full implementation of the Clayson recommendations. Had they been properly implemented, that might have led to a change of the type for which we were hoping from the Bill.
If the availability of statistics is inadequate, it could be improved. Statistics are available. What is not available is some rational means of collecting and collating them so that they can be compared year by year and their effects noted. Increased consumption means increased problems—of drink-driving, and of injury and death caused by the same, particularly in the late afternoon. That is when a large amount of the extra time will fall—just when our children are returning home from school. That is when drunken drivers will be disgorged on to the streets and into their cars to cause mayhem. That is not an attractive prospect. If we do not bring in new legislation to combat it, we should at least examine it.
I want to quote from a letter to the Home Office from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, commenting on the Government's consultative proposals:
Paragraph 10 of the document states that action is more likely to be effective if it is focused on particular problems rather than if it is co-ordinated across a range of policies. At the same time the Government is making a change in one policy, namely, the extension of licensing hours, without any consideration of other policies which are yet to be developed, even though it is acknowledged that licensing controls have played a significant role in preventing nuisance, and in maintaining public order and safety. It is therefore totally inconsistent to introduce one measure, at this point, which will undoubtedly increase the availability of alcohol to the population as a whole
There is evidence of a rise recently in overall alcohol intake and in death from cirrhosis. It is at least likely that the increased suicide rate in younger males may be related to alcohol problems, as well as I o unemployment. Many reports indicate that some 15–30 per cent. of general hospital


admissions are related to alcohol problems. The present time, therefore, is hardly propitious for an extension of licensing hours. The proposal indicates a lack of concern on the part of the Government about the damage which alcohol does to the community and the individual and also the enormous costs incurred by the Health and Social Services, in terms of disease, morbidity and child care.
Those European countries which have more liberal licensing laws also seem to have a higher level of overall consumption of alcohol and a higher level of alcohol related disease. All the evidence points to the fact that increasing the accessibility to alcohol by whatever measure increases its consumption …
However, since the extension of the licensing laws in Scotland, there has been a marked increase in the combination of alcohol and self-poisoning. There has also been a recent acceleration, compared with England and Wales, in the rise of female deaths from cirrhosis …
We do not accept that the licensing laws are in any way a hindrance to the tourist industry".
One of the reasons for liberalising them is the tourist industry.
They may indeed be regarded as part of the British scene like 'Beefeaters' and other innocuous eccentricities. We believe that a unilateral act of increasing the licensing hours can only lead to increased problems from alcohol, particularly in those who are most vulnerable, i.e. those who already have a high alcohol consumption and also young people whose drinking is already causing considerable concern.
I have quoted extensively from the letter because it underlines the royal college's concern about the effects of the Bill.

Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman is a Scottish Member. Scotland already enjoys sensible licensing laws allowing people to drink during the afternoon. I am a regular visitor to Aviemore, where the slopes close at 4 pm. After skiing, people in Scotland can go for a drink during the afternoon. Does the hon. Gentleman think that skiing would be as popular in Scotland if people were given a cup of tea after they came off the slopes?

Dr. Moonie: I shall be happy for English ski resorts to be granted the same privilege. I cannot think of any off-hand, but I am sure there must be one or two. With that in mind, I want to quote from Saunders on licensing laws:
A central concern about the extensive granting of 'all-day' licensing is that as with all forms of drug use availability is a key factor in determining levels of harm. As noted above the lesson of Europe is that those countries with little or no legislative controls on alcohol use have the highest rates of alcohol related mortality. All day licensing makes us more like the French not only in drinking style but also in terms of patterns of problems. The French experience is one of infrequent drunkenness but extensive alcohol related mortality (9). It is possible that in Scotland we have created the basis for an explosion of physical damage from alcohol use which will over the next decade become increasingly evident in our general medical wards. With regard to this it is important to note that between 1976 and 1983 alcohol consumption in the UK as a whole rose by 4·5 per cent. but in Scotland per capita consumption increased at a disproportionate level—up by 13 per cent. The enthusiasm with which the Brewers Society is currently campaigning for extended hours south of the Border has no doubt been induced by their appreciation that more hours means more sales. From a public health perspective this inevitably means more harm …
In Britain alcohol has never been controlled for health reasons, so it is likely that the Brewers Society will succeed in their campaign. Therefore, the next decade will be one in which Britons"—
meaning the English, I presume—

consume more alcohol and experience more alcohol-related problems. When this melancholic fact is achieved the alcohol producers will have succeeded in making us more like the French.
I ask the Minister at least to accept the premise that there may be ill effects of the Bill. I trust that he does not hope to cover them up by failing to look adequately at the statistics. Will he undertake to instruct the Home Office to work with other Ministries to make a careful study of the available statistics as they arise? Will he assure us that, should there be clear evidence of harm resulting from the Bill, he will think again?

Sir Bernard Braine: The new clause concerns the vital need to monitor licensing law changes in relation to public health and social well-being. It will require the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Transport to monitor the effects of changes in licensing hours on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in respect of public order, road safety and public health in England and Wales.
The new clause is entirely constructive. It will in no way damage the main aim and purpose of the Bill or provide any impediment to its full implementation. It merely ensures that adequate information about effects is made available. I hope that the House will consent to it. I remind the House that it consented to an identical clause that was moved on the Report stage of the Licensing Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). That Bill had the Government's approval. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) put her finger on the crucial consideration. In Committee, she observed that almost all debates had been taken up not with differences of political philosophy or moral points of view, but with arguments about matters of fact. Surely few hon. Members would wish to see extended drinking hours if there were no reasonable doubt that the result of such reform would be more deaths and injuries on our roads, more outbreaks of public disorder on our streets, and even more pressure being placed on the Health Service. Equally, few hon. Members would object to extended drinking hours if there were clear evidence that no harm would result.
Unfortunately, debates on this Bill and on previous Bills — I have taken part in such debates for over 20 years—have been obstructed and prolonged by a lack of basic information. The Scottish experiment has completely failed to produce conclusive evidence on either side of the debate because it was not properly monitored. On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said:
The Clayson committee was concerned to ensure proper monitoring of the effects of changes in Scottish legislation, but that has not happened. I hope that, recognising some of the apprehensions voiced today, the Government will feel that that should now be done in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may be a topic for consideration by the interdepartmental committee." —[Official Report, 9 November 1987; Vol. 1427, c. 63.]
That advice should have been taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in favour of the Bill. He was a member of the Clayson committee. I should have thought that his view had added weight, and I endorse it fully.
8.45 pm
In his reply, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he agreed that it would be necessary to monitor the effects of the Bill and that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys had already undertaken


an up-to-date survey of drinking habits in England and Wales to provide data against which any changes could be measured. I have had on more than one occasion to point out to the House that that same monitoring did take place, but that the Government sat on the findings for over a year. I am glad that they have now seen the light, but it is not nearly enough. Many other aspects of the matter need to be examined in depth. If the Scottish experiment is any guide, even the OPCS survey, which the Minister mentioned, may turn out to be of only limited usefulness.
I have lost count of the number of occasions on which the OPCS survey, "Drinking and Attitudes to Licensing in Scotland", has been cited as providing conclusive proof that extended drinking hours in Scotland have had no adverse affects but, possibly, some beneficial effects. In the view of one neutral reviewer, Dr. Philip Davies, the study
provides very little empirical evidence to support those who wish to see a further relaxation in licensing laws on either side of the border.
I do not think that I am distorting Dr. Davies' views by adding that neither does the Scottish survey provide clear evidence against further liberalisation. That is the precise point that I make. For example, Dr. Davies points out that questions about alcohol problems or the abuse of alcohol were beyond the remit of the survey and that, similarly, questions regarding drinking practices in relation to eating out or other social activities were not asked.
Therefore, the survey provides no information about whether married couples are drinking together in pubs more frequently now than they were before relaxation, or whether they are using pubs more frequently for eating out or other recreational activities, with or without their children. In other words, the survey provides no information about whether licensing reform in Scotland has encouraged more civilised drinking, as the Clayson committee had hoped. The fact is, however, that those who drank heavily before the Scottish reform now drink more heavily. There is some evidence, therefore, that the reforms are not all what their advocates had claimed.
Although I am pleased to know that the Government have already laid a small part of the foundations for monitoring licensing law changes south of the border, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that the surveys that are planned for England and Wales will be rather less incomplete and superficial than their Scottish counterpart. I hope that he will also accept that, although drinking surveys are important, they are only one part of the picture. We also need detailed studies of the matters that were excluded from the Scottish survey, for example, alcohol abuse.
The Erroll committee strongly recommended that detailed monitoring of licensing law changes be carried out, and suggested that an interdepartmental working party should be created to direct and supervise the work. That was an excellent suggestion. I spent years advocating something along those lines. The Wakeham committee is now in existence, and I warmly welcome it. If there is one Minister in whose judgment and integrity I have supreme confidence, it is my right hon. Friend the Lord President and Leader of the House. The Government made a wise choice in putting him in charge of the interdepartmental committee.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members might support him if he were to state

that he supported one of the other recommendations of the Erroll committee, which was that public houses should be open until midnight?

Sir Bernard Braine: I have heard some odd, peculiar and irresponsible suggestions in the years but—

Mr. Knight: It is in the Erroll Committee report.

Sir Bernard Braine: No Government have ever dared to implement the Erroll committee's recommendations. There is now an attempt to move a little in that direction. So far, no Government have ever done so, because of the known and uncontrolled harm that is done. My hon. Friend must not push me too far, or I shall trot out the case in detail. The Erroll committee was not wholly wrong. It was wise in making that one suggestion. We must not take away that little credit. Indeed, the Government and supporters of further licensing liberalisation should welcome the clause. I gave way to my hon. Friend because I thought that he, for whom I have great respect, was going to say that.
There is a direct precedent. Following the passage of the Defence of the Realm Act 1916, some provisions of which this Bill seeks to reform, the Central Liquor Control Board was established to monitor its working and effects. If the changes that are brought about by the Bill are monitored in the same meticulous way as the Defence of the Realm Act was monitored by the Central Liquor Control Board, in five years we shall have the facts and experience to make rational decisions about the role that opening hours should play in national policy.
I stress that between the two wars under that regime this was the most sober country in the civilised world. The deterioration in behaviour with regard to alcohol goes back only 15 or 20 years. During that time we have seen a huge increase in alcohol consumption and a huge increase in harm. That is the lesson that I am trying to put over today. It is a difficult task, but it must be done.
Once we have proper monitoring, we can formulate policy along the lines confirmed by careful social investigation and no longer be in the present position of having to take steps in the dark. I do not deny that the required monitoring system would be extensive. One of the main distinguishing features of alcohol abuse is that it impinges on almost every aspect of social life. That is precisely why we should be so cautious about extending drinking hours. There is no need for me to describe at length all the various manifestations and consequences of alcohol abuse. However, I am bound to say that as a result of the helpful intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: He did not mean it.

Sir Bernard Braine: He challenged me and I responded.
I remind the House that the Bill is designed to increase the availability of a substance that is already an important contributory factor to approximately one in five admissions to general medical units. It is responsible for 40 to 50 per cent. of violent crime and approximately one third of divorce petitions and cases of child abuse. It is by far the single main cause of death and injury on our roads. Need I say more? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The truth shall make ye free. There are times when it is necessary to say these things so that hon. Members may understand that their liberalising efforts may have worthy objectives, but they carry a heavy price.
Alcohol abuse is a problem for all society, not merely for a small minority of unfortunate individuals. I will not claim that it can be proved in advance that the Bill will make matters worse. I cannot say that. I can merely say that there is an obvious danger that it will do so. We are therefore under a considerable obligation to discover what the effects will be. Special social impact surveys will be needed to provide that information. The monitoring process must be regular and consistent, not spasmodic or erratic. It will also be necessary to ascertain regional variations in patterns of alcohol use and abuse. The effects of the Bill may differ from one part of the country to another. It may differ between urban areas and rural areas and it might vary between the north—which has a tradition for hard drinking — and the south. Those differences must be identified and understood.
While the monitoring process will undoubtedly require considerable activity and expertise, it should not place an impossible burden on the three Departments named in the new clause. Increasingly, data on alcohol-related problems are being gathered, although as I suspect the Wakeham committee has already discovered, the information is far from complete.
Some district health authorities have already begun to measure the incidence of alcohol-related accidental or non-accidental injuries presented to accident and emergency departments in a given locality according to the hour of day and the day of the week. Health authorities are also already improving their capacity to measure by means such as hospital activity analysis data the number of patients being treated for alcohol-related disease and the financial cost to the taxpayer of such treatment.
If the Government are undertaking a review of the Health Service, including its costs, organisation and administration, they should consider alcohol abuse very closely. The cost to the nation as a whole is very high. Similarly, it would not be too difficult for the home accident surveillance system to be adapted to identify the contribution of alcohol abuse to home accidents including fires, the importance of which has been recognised in recent publicity.
I remember the surprise I caused when commending some time ago the practice of one chief constable who listed whether alcohol was related to every charge on his records. That was not then a common practice in the police, but it should have been so that we could understand the total cost of alcohol abuse.
Equally, there is no reason why social services and probation departments as well as the police should not be able to develop systems for the routine monitoring of caseloads and offences to identify the contribution of alcohol abuse. At the moment, individual pieces of research suggest strongly that alcohol abuse is a significant factor in all those areas, but we need to know much more. The Bill is before the House; why is the opportunity not being taken to include such a provision? I am here to help the Minister to move in the right direction.
Whatever form the monitoring process takes, the public health and social well-being of the community requires that the results should be made widely available and of course to Parliament. This may or may not be the last occasion when an attempt will be made to change the licensing law, although I cannot believe that another Bill of this scope will be presented to the House in the

foreseeable future. The least that we can do now, if we vote the Bill into law, is to ensure that a comprehensive monitoring process is established to bring the facts to light and inform those who have responsibility for public health, public order and public safety. The new clause can be regarded as a threat to licensing reform.

Mr. Charles Irving: I rarely intervene in debates, but it is rather cold at this end of the Chamber. I think that the boiler has fused. I am so interested and excited by my right hon. Friend's dissertation. Is he suggesting that all the new regulations should apply to the House of Commons? As temporary landlord of the bars and facilities here, I should be grateful to know, so that I can make appropriate preparation.

Sir Bernard Braine: I should not be drawn in that direction, but many of our constituents ask why the bars in the Houses of Parliament are outside the licensing law. If the matter rested with me, they would not be. I understand that this has something to do with the fact that we occupy a royal palace which is not subject to the normal licensing laws. I will not defend that for a moment. However, my hon. Friend, who presides as Chairman over the House of Commons Catering Sub-Committee with such grace, charm and high competence—never has the food here been so good—must address himself to that point. I should not tread any further down that inviting but perhaps rather dangerous road.
The least that we can do now if we vote the Bill into law is to ensure that a comprehensive monitoring process is established to bring the facts to light and inform those responsible for public health, public order and public services. The new clause can be regarded as a threat to licensing reform only by those who fear the facts. I cannot believe that the House will take such a view and prefer ignorance to knowledge. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall speak briefly in support of the new clause. My only interest in the debate is to represent the well-being of my constituents in Wakefield. I never cease to be amazed in such debates to see the number of Conservative Members who directly represent business interests. Tonight, Conservative Members have excelled themselves.
9 pm
It worries me that people outside the House assume that hon. Members come here to represent their constituency interests. We know exactly what interests Conservative Members represent in tonight's debate. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, we are debating what is virtually a brewers' charter. The Bill is a brewers' charter. It is in the interests of the brewers and the business people who sit on the Conservative Benches. The Bill is a present from the Conservative Government to those who have loyally supported them in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolute nonsense."] It is a fact. The right hon. Member for Castle Point virtually conceded that point in his earlier comments. It is amazing that the Government can find legislative time to discuss extending drinking hours but not the real issues that have been touched upon — those relating to the problems of alcohol in our society. Those problems worry me, they worry other hon. Members, and they certainly worry my constituents in Wakefield.
The problem of drunken driving has been referred to in the debate. Every year there are 100,000 drink-driving convictions, and every year accidents involving drivers who are drunk cost the country £89 million. There is a public clamour for random breath tests. We should be discussing those issues instead of extending drinking hours. We should be discussing family problems, marital violence, marital breakdown and child abuse related to drinking. The Government should be giving the House time to discuss those issues instead of what we are debating tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has referred to the £2 billion that alcohol-related illness costs the National Health Service.
I should like to say a few words about drink-related crime. It is quite clear that there is a definite connection between offences that occur late at night and the amount of alcohol that people have consumed. I shall not go into great detail on the points that I made in Committee about the concern in my west Yorkshire constituency about drink-related offences which occur late at night, at around the time when pubs and clubs are closing.
Drink-related crime has reached a crisis point in west Yorkshire, and I suspect in certain other parts of the country. The Minister will recall that I mentioned in Committee the police figures for the Wakefield subdivision of west Yorkshire police. My constituency has the largest percentage of offences for violence against the person in the whole of west Yorkshire. That is because there is more drinking in Wakefield than elsewhere in west Yorkshire. It is accepted that we have more late-night licences. People come from as far away as London on trips to Wakefield, which is deemed to be a drinking town. It is not my constituents who are the drinkers. The problem is that people come from outside to my constituency. They come in busloads. Football supporters use my constituency for late-night drinking.
The huge crime figures, which have increased recently within the Wakefield sub-division, clearly correlate with closing time. The police say that around closing time in Wakefield city centre — Wakefield is small, with a population of less than 60,000 people — as many as 6,000 people can be milling around in various stages of intoxication. That is the cause of problems in Wakefield. Shortly before Christmas, 37 people were arrested for drink-related offences in Wakefield city centre in one night. The local police station had great difficulty in accommodating them.
We need to have encompassed in the legislation a review of what exactly is happening as a result of drinking. The local authorities in the Wakefield area are blamed for that problem. We are told — this point was made in Committee—that local authorities can block those late-night licences through their entertainment licensing powers. I made the point in Committee that the authorities in Wakefield attempted to do that, but time after time on appeal they have lost and had costs awarded against them in their efforts to defend the interests of my constituents. The local people are desperate for action, but it will not come from this legislation.

Mr. Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new restriction orders, which are an intrinsic part of the Bill, address directly the problem of which he has just spoken?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I accept that, but I am concerned about entertainment licences. That problem is not dealt with in

the Bill, despite the fact that I raised it several times in Committee. The only way to deal with it is to follow the provisions of new clause 5 and hope that subsequently the Government will realise the extent of the problem in many parts of the country because of drink-related crime. The Government are totally oblivious to this worrying problem.
I want to make three points, to which I hope the Minister will respond. It is vital that the Government examine the evidence from the police in areas such as west Yorkshire about drink-related offences. They will get a message contrary to what they are providing for in the Bill. The problem, which will be evident from the figures provided by the police, should have been tackled in the Bill.
The Government should also take action to curb the increasing problem of late-night establishments which charge inflated admission prices of £4 or £5 and then sell beer or lager at 10p a pint. That is a financial incentive to people to get blind drunk. I accept that the Government do not want to get involved in market forces, but this practice encourages people to get drunk and commit crimes. Local authorities should be given real powers to block late-night entertainment licences and to tackle the problems of late-night drinking in areas such as Wakefield.
The Goverment are unbelievably complacent about the real problems referred to by the right hon. Member for Castle Point and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). The provision for monitoring is essential. It is crucial to ensure that people's real concerns about alcohol are tackled by Parliament.

Sir Dudley Smith: Monitoring would have limited value. I intervene only to answer the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). While we all accept that alcohol abuse leads to severe illness and death and to big social problems, restrictionism does not always equate with sobriety.
Last week I was talking to a leading Swedish politician whom I know well. He told me that in his country alcohol is extremely expensive and that there are many restrictions. Has that caused a lowering of alcohol consumption? It has not. Alcoholism is on the increase in Scandinavia, and particularly in Sweden. It has reached the stage where large numbers of people, including families, have their own stills to make alcohol. That is against the law, but the Government, presumably abandoning the monitoring that they had undertaken, have turned a blind eye to what is happening. They do not prosecute the individual; they prosecute only when a person gets ambitious and starts selling the product.
I am not suggesting that we will get to that position. Indeed, the liberal and far-sighted approach of the Government in this excellent Bill will assist us in being sensible about the problem. Time and again one hears from the critics a tale of woe and disaster. The one way of countering the problem is to stop drinking altogether or to restricti it severely. In some parts of the world restricton has been attempted but has not worked.

Mr. Anderson: I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). All the figures that I have seen, both national and international, suggest that there is a correlation between availability and consumption and between price and


consumption. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is important that the facts be established. I do, and that is why I support new clause 5.
I hope that everybody agrees that we need an informed debate on this vital issue. There must be greater public knowledge about it. We need legislation which is not a stab in the dark but based on the best available knowledge of what the effects of that legislation are likely to be. I hope that the Government will monitor those effects and will publish their findings. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington can feed in his own considerations, and we can all come to reasonable conclusions on the basis of knowledge rather than our respective presuppositions.
We also need enforcement and action. Our fear is that the Government may not want too much knowledge as they might be forced, as a result of public opinion, to take some action which they found distasteful. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) observed that if the Government want to save money on the National Health Service, they should address themselves to the enormous financial burden on that service caused by alcohol abuse. That burden can be increased or decreased by Government policy on alcohol.
We need monitoring, as it is quite clear from what the Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the Government take a dynamic view of the liberalisation of the licensing laws. This is only the start. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that he would go much further. There is a dichotomy between his restrictionism with regard to refugees and immigration and his liberalism concerning the licensing laws. He favours more liberalisation for Sundays and, given half a chance, the Government would add to the liberalisation represented by the Bill. The Government are approaching the matter on an incremental basis. They will go step by step towards, possibly, total deregulation. It is therefore all the more important that we should know what the consequences of such action might be before it is taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said that the Welsh Office is mentioned in an amendment which we are to consider later. I shall not bore the House with the arguments that I made in Committee, but there is indeed a Welsh dimension. The scale of the problem is much greater in Wales, so I hope that the Welsh Office will take a role in the issue.
If the Government do not want to know the facts, they will continue to stumble along in the dark. It seems that they are unprepared to research the effects of the changes. Perhaps the findings of such research would be unwelcome to them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not commend the new clause to the House. My reasons are both broad and narrow, and I shall deal with the latter first. This House should not impose statutory obligations that are incapable of enforcement. The new clause seeks to do just that, because, although it specifies objectives, it does not specify means. Nor does it say what has to be done to comply with a statutory obligation. On those narrow grounds alone, the new clause is defective.
Secondly and broadly, the problem is not lack of information—there is plenty of information—but lack of interpretation of the information. We can have all the

information that we like, but I strongly suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), with all the eloquence for which he is noted, would argue for a different conclusion to be drawn from that information from that which I would draw.
Government Departments such as the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the DHSS accumulate a vast body of information relating to the problems of drink, their consequences and their characteristics. In places like this, we are concerned not with lack of knowledge but with the interpretation to be placed on it. That being so, although I greatly admired my right hon. Friend's speech, I cannot commend his new clause to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 270.

Division No. 166]
[9.16 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
McCartney, Ian


Alton, David
McCrea, Rev William


Anderson, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Barron, Kevin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Beggs, Roy
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Beith, A. J.
Maxton, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Michael, Alun


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morgan, Rhodri


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Murphy, Paul


Cryer, Bob
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cummings, J.
Parry, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Doran, Frank
Richardson, Ms Jo


Douglas, Dick
Robertson, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Faulds, Andrew
Short, Clare


Fearn, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Flynn, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hardy, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hinchliffe, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Howells, Geraint
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kilfedder, James
Dr. Lewis Moonie and


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Livingstone, Ken



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Amess, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arbuthnot, James
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkinson, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baldry, Tony
Buck, Sir Antony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Burns, Simon


Bendall, Vivian
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butler, Chris


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew






Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Janman, Timothy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Crowther, Stan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Favell, Tony
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nelson, Anthony


Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rathbone, Tim


Hill, James
Redwood, John


Hind, Kenneth
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Riddick, Graham


Holt, Richard
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howard, Michael
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rossi, Sir Hugh





Rost, Peter
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trippier, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

GARAGE SALES

After section ((3) of the principal Act, there shall he inserted the following subsection—
(3A) premises which in whole or in part are engaged in the retailing of petrol or dery to motorists or other users of motor vehicles shall be disqualified for receiving a justices' off-licence.".—[Sir Bernard Braine.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to prohibit the granting of off-licences to petrol stations and garages. The arguments in favour of the clause are simple, obvious and self-evident: alcohol and driving are plainly mismatched.
I have been unable to obtain up-to-date information about the number of off-licences granted to garages and petrol stations, but I understand that the number is not large—probably less than 100. Indeed, I understand that licensing committees are more likely to refuse than to grant such a licence. However, the fact that applications are being made is a cause for concern. The purpose of the clause is to ensure consistency of practice by giving licensing committees clear directives, which I believe the vast majority would greatly welcome. Some directives would also be particularly welcome to the licensing justices in the vast majority of areas which have, quite rightly, held out against the granting of such licences.
The police would also welcome the clause. Indeed, it was prompted by a letter to me from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which stated that, at the last executive committee meeting of the association in December, a motion was put forward by districts and subsequently adopted as official policy of the association, seeking the abolition of a loophole in the liquor licensing law created by section 4 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. That section allows liquor to be sold in bulk as a wholesale transaction without the need for any particular form of licensing control of the premises concerned.
The letter stated:
In this respect many garage forecourts are supplying bulk amounts of alcohol to motorists and general shoppers, which the Association feels is in direct conflict with the duty of the police to reduce drinking and driving, apart from any other reasons to tighten up control over this kind of outlet.
The House will be aware that police superintendents are senior field officers and their view should not be taken lightly.

Mr. Roger King: Would my right hon. Friend care to explain the problem that might be encountered at hypermarkets, where the sale of petrol is undertaken on the same premises where food and alcoholic drinks are also for sale?

Sir Bernard Braine: At this late hour I am not prepared to go into detail. All I will say is that the principle enshrined in my clause should commend itself to all hon. Members. However, I am not prepared to be diverted.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I will not give way because Mr. Speaker clearly wants the business to move on.
The arguments in favour of the clause are straightforward. First, given the large number of outlets for alcohol that now exist, it can hardly be claimed that sales from petrol stations are necessary for the convenience of the customer. Secondly, sales from petrol stations are totally and inherently inconsistent with the whole aim, purpose and direction of national policy against drinking and driving.
I am not in a position to claim that alcohol sales from petrol stations have led directly to drink-drive accidents because if that were the case it would not be apparent from the official statistics. However, the fact is that alcohol sales from petrol stations give entirely the wrong message. The whole purpose of the Department of Transport's campaign is rightly to dissociate drinking from driving and driving from drinking. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) understands that.
The codes of advertising practice—albeit voluntary—prohibit the association of drinking with driving in advertisements. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how an actual physical association between the two activities can be justified. Motorway service areas are, of course, already prohibited from selling alcohol.
It may be argued that my new clause is unwarranted because there is no essential difference between driving off having stacked up the boot of one's care with alcohol bought at a local supermarket and doing the same thing with alcohol bought at the petrol station. I submit, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between

the two cases. The function of legislation is not merely to affect behaviour in an immediate direct sense; in a democratic society such as ours, legislation also has an educational function. It is an important way in which our society makes a statement to the effect that some way of behaviour is unacceptable.
Granting licences to petrol stations makes exactly the opposite statement to the one we wish to make. By definition, the essential aim and purpose of petrol stations, unlike supermarkets, is to serve motorists. The idea of serving motorists with alcohol is anathema to everything that the Department of Transport is trying to accomplish through its campaigns and publicity.
The passage of the new clause will cause little, if any, significant inconvenience to the public and, indeed, strengthening the arm of the licensing benches to refuse inappropriate applications for licences from premises, the primary purpose of which is to serve drivers, would meet with the approval of the great majority of the public and those responsible for safety on our roads. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Anderson: Many of the considerations that apply to motorway service stations also apply to the new clause. The particular problem of hypermarkets could be solved by the words "primary purpose" or "ancillary to" if there were an appropriate qualification. I hope that at least the principle of the new clause commends itself to the Minister.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House would like to express its thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for the brief, clear way in which they have advanced the argument. There are three reasons why I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
First, the general powers which enable justices to refuse licences are sufficient. That probably explains why there are only about 150 garages with off-licence facilities.
The second reason relates to the problem of hypermarkets. Hon. Members will know of the increasing tendency for out-of-town supermarkets and hypermarkets to sell both alcohol and petrol. One cannot honestly say that that was mistaken. If we follow the route of the hon. Member for Swansea, East, we shall reach every kind of complexity.
Thirdly, in some—not many—small rural areas local stores sell groceries, alcohol and petrol. They serve a local need and it would be wrong to stop them. For those reasons, I cannot commend the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 10

DELEGATED POWER OF LICENSING JUSTICES

'In section 6 of the principal Act (provisional grant of new licence or removal), in subsection (4), after the word "justices" there shall be inserted the words
or a single licensing justice with delegated powers authorised under Schedule 1 Part I Paragraph 7 to this Act.".'.—[Mr. Waller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Waller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 11—Adjudication of application by single licensing justice—

'The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 6 of Schedule I Part I to the principal Act—
7. In the case of an application under section 6(4) above licensing justices may adjourn the hearing of such an application and delegate its adjudication to a single member of the licensing committee.".'

Mr. Waller: Like the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who came to the Chamber, made his diatribe against Conservative Members and departed, I speak for my constituents and I am concerned on their behalf alone.
The existing law on the issue of licences is inconvenient not only for many new supermarkets and premises but for the public. Retailers who are opening new stores face a particular problem with section 6(4) of the principal Act, in that licencing justices can have a provisional grant of a justices' off-licence declared final at a transfer session only when such premises are completed in accordance with plans deposited. That leads to difficulties, as such sessions may often be held only five times a year. The likelihood of a new store being completed in accordance with the deposited plans on one such day during the year is rather remote.
Consequently, a company opening premises on the day after a transfer session may face the prospect of not being able to sell liquor for a considerable period—perhaps as long as 10 weeks. It is difficult to see that any public good is achieved thereby. For example, when the Gateway store in Lavender Hill opened, it faced a delay of three weeks before it could sell liquor. In other cases, the opening of a store has been delayed because it did not coincide with the transfer sessions. Although the Bill contains a provision to change the number of licensing sessions to be held, the minimum number of such sessions will remain unchanged. The Bill does little, therefore, to improve the situation.
New clauses 10 and 11 seek to enable the applicant who applies for a final order under section 6(4) of the 1964 Act to apply for the matter to be heard upon the date on which the premises are declared to be completed. A store would already have been granted a fire certificate by the local authority. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that he sympathises with and will consider ways of taking on board this point.
The proposal would delegate power to one licensing justice to hear the application, rather than inconvenience, the bench and require the minimum of three justices, as are required to attend a licence transfer session. I do not foresee that any disadvantages will flow from this proposal and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has asked me to say two things: first, that I sympathise with the point; and, secondly, that I shall consider ways of taking it on board. I shall do both of those things.

Mr. Waller: In view of that response, which, albeit brief, I take to be sympathetic, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

MODIFICATION OF PERMITTED HOURS

Mr. Colvin: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(2) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday) for the word "five" there shall be substituted the word "three" and for the words "beginning at two in the afternoon" shall be substituted "between two and seven in the afternoon.".'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
'(2) In section 60(1)(b) of the principal Act (permitted hours in licensed premises on Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday) the words "with a break of five hours beginning at two in the afternoon" shall be omitted.'.

Mr. Colvin: We might describe one of these amendments as frivolous and the other as eminently sensible. Both relate to the permitted hours issue on Sundays. Amendment No. 4 is rather impractical, at least in political terms, as it attempts to treat Sundays like other days of the week by abolishing the need for licensees to close during the afternoon. In the light of the Shops Bill, I do not think that the House is ready for such a change. I am sure that the time will come for such proposals, so for the moment I shall not seek to press amendment No. 4.
Perhaps it would be advisable to remind the House of the licensing law on Sundays, Christmas day and Good Friday. The permitted hours are from 12 noon to 10.30 pm, with a break of five hours beginning at 2 pm. Pubs are therefore closed between 2 pm and 7 pm, a total of five hours. My proposal would limit the closing to three hours only, leaving it to the publican to decide during which of the three hours between 2 pm and 7 pm he would close.
I realise that I am on extremely dangerous ground, as I have dared to touch on the issue of Sunday trading. This is only a modest inching forward on this issue; it is not even a step forward, but it is a modest move in the right direction towards what we might describe as "sense on Sunday". I am mindful of the ignominious fate of the Government's Shops Bill, defeated in the House by an unholy alliance of the official Opposition, the trade union movement and a number of Back Benchers, no doubt with marginal seats, who demonstrated the truism that a politician's mind is conditioned by the state of his seat.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: That is a monstrous, disgraceful and utterly untrue statement. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Mr. Colvin: With respect to my hon. Friend, I shall withdraw it. If I have touched on any sensitivities, I withdraw that statement unreservedly.

Sir Bernard Braine: Would my hon. Friend also withdraw it in respect of myself? Over the years, I have been consistent on this subject. It has not affected the vote in my constituency, which, I am happy to say, has increased at every election.

Mr. Colvin: If it needed to be shown that Sunday trading is a sensitive issue, I have done so. I unreservedly apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
Amendment No. 2 also questions the Government's commitment to reforming the laws on Sunday trading. They should be a little more courageous than they have been in this Bill.
9.45 pm
I draw the House's attention to a commitment in the Conservative party manifesto of the last general election. The relevant paragraph appears immediately before the commitment to reforming the licensing laws. It reads:
We will, therefore, look for an acceptable way forward to bring sense and consistency to the law on Sunday trading.
In that regard, I suggest that amendment No. 2 would be a sensible first step.
Earlier my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that public houses in Britain are changing very fast. Many public houses now offer meals. To cope with the provision of meals, a measure of flexibility in Sunday opening hours would merit serious consideration.
What I am proposing would ensure that Sundays were still treated specially. One cannot change that by law. I do not believe, as do my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the amendment would jeopardise the Bill. On Second Reading, they were questioned about their attitudes on changing the Sunday trading law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) to say whether he would agree to changing the law on Sunday hours. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked:
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would vote against an attempt to extend the Bill to Sundays?
The Secretary of State said:
I am not. I am simply stating facts."—[Official Report, 9 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 41.]
When pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman), he was still a little ambivalent. There is much support, not only on the Conservative Benches but in the Government, for a change in the law on permitted hours on Sundays. I have heard no good arguments advanced for preserving the status quo. No doubt hon. Members who feel strongly on the subject will make their views known.
We must accept that the social scene in the United Kingdom is changing very fast. In keeping with the efforts that are being made to encourage tourism, particularly in rural areas, licensees should be given an opportunity to respond to the demands of their customers.
Essentially, we are talking about an element of choice, and choice is an important Conservative principle. At present, public houses open at midday and have to close at 2 pm. Two hours is not long to eat a lunch on Sundays. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State looks very much like a port and pheasant man. He has already admitted in another debate that he is a shooting man. I am sure that, when he has finished his lunch on Sunday, he will not be able to enjoy his glass of port before being driven home by his wife, who has been drinking Perrier water, because there will not be time to do so. That is ridiculous.
If we accept, as I believe we have, the arguments in favour of a change in the so-called permitted hours from Mondays to Saturdays, surely it is inconsistent and illogical not to reform the hours on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmases as well.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is not here to move this amendment. He has taken part in previous licensing reform debates and was present during the lobby of Parliament last December. He told some 400 assembled licensees in the Great Hall that he favoured a change in the

licensing law operating on Sundays. A number of Opposition Members favour a change in the law on Sundays with regard to licensing, although they do not favour a change generally with regard to retail trading.
This is not what is described a probing amendment. It is essentially a prodding amendment to persuade the Government to think again. We shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Sir Dudley Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has moved the amendment in a moderate way. Three headings need to be taken into account. First, I do not think that there is any hon. Member who does not believe that this change will eventually come about. I emphasise the fact that this is a modest move, which paves the way for future change. If the change is not made now, and the amendment is not accepted—I do not expect that it will be—surely it will come within the next decade.
Secondly, the present Sunday opening hours are not understood by foreign tourists. They find all our licensing laws puzzling, and Sunday hours are especially puzzling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said, many modern public houses serve food. Many foreign tourists eat in public houses and it becomes something of a liability if the bell is rung at 2 o'clock.
Thirdly, I submit that a limited change is sensible and would not cause any more disturbance than now occurs on Sundays. I support the movement to keep Sunday special, with only limited shop opening. I abstained in the vote after the Sunday trading debate. I am certainly not a free-for-all man in respect of Sundays. In speeding this legislation on its way, we should take account of the position on Sundays and provide for a modest increase in hours.

Sir Bernard Braine: I oppose the amendment, which is clearly against the public interest and which, moreover, runs counter to many of the assurances given with regard to the modest scope and purposes of the Bill.
I wish to be fair to the Government. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because, with the Wakeham committee having just been established—a development which I warmly welcomed—I did not believe that this was the appropriate time to meddle with the licensing laws and because the Bill did not at that time include any safeguards in relation to the problem of under-age drinking.
I am glad to concede that the Government have taken important steps towards the inclusion of additional safeguards. Whether I vote against the Bill on Third Reading depends on the outcome of the drink industry's attempts to obtain longer opening hours. I shall await what my hon. Friend says about that with the greatest of interest.
I am pleased that so far, during Second Reading and in Committee, the Government have honoured the assurances that they gave the House about Sunday opening. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to resist pressure from the drink industry with the utmost vigour.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would it help my right hon. Friend to know that we have no intention of departing from the assurances that we have already given?

Sir Bernard Braine: I did not think for one moment that my hon. Friend would depart from his assurances, but it


is necessary to make a stand in these matters so that there should be no misunderstanding. Some of the speeches in the debate have shown a considerable misunderstanding of the position. For that reason, I am entitled to give my reasons why the House should reject the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
I have already mentioned my first reason, which is that to accept the amendment would renege on repeated assurances that the Bill would exclude Sundays. The Government's consultative document stated that they would be excluded, as they were, and the Bill completed its Committee stage unaltered in that respect. No doubt there would have been more opposition to the Bill in Committee if Sundays had been included.
The second reason is that there is no evidence that the majority of the public want extended drinking hours on Sundays. Indeed, the evidence from opinion polls strongly suggests that a large majority of the population opposes such a change. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, it is necessary for me to say something. The MORI poll in November 1987 found that only 29 per cent. of the population agreed with longer pub opening hours on Sundays, while 59 per cent. were opposed. Thus, to accept the amendment would he not merely to renege on previous assurances but to do so knowing that we were flying in the face of public opinion.
The third reason for opposing the amendment has to do with the additional harm that would be created by extending drinking hours. In the first place, there is the matter of prolonged annoyance and aggravation to local residents. For many people, Sunday afternoon is the only time in the week when they can enjoy rest and relaxation with their families at home, free from the noise and disturbance that characterise the rest of the week.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said, Sunday is regarded by many people as a special day. The amendment, if carried, would be likely to spoil that specialness for a great many people. I do not represent and have never represented the views of Sabbatarians but a vast number of our people who do not go to church or have religious views about Sunday want to keep one day in the week when they can enjoy peace and quiet. Those living in the immediate vicinity of a pub would he especially likely to experience additional annoyance, but the problem would by no means he restricted to them.
Many of us are anxious about the likely effects of the Bill in increasing outbreaks of public disorder during the week, which is why I have tabled an amendment to improve the safeguards. But the disorders are most likely to occur at weekends, the time of the week when most alcohol is consumed. We await with some trepidation what will happen in our streets and town centres on Saturdays once the Bill is in force. The prospect of the peak drinking period being extended to include Sundays would certainly cause considerable alarm to the staff of the accident and emergency departments of hospitals and to the police, who will have to cope with the consequences.
I quote a brief extract from the Yorkshire Post on 21 September last year. It shows what I have in mind. The heading is:
A wet Friday night out
It states:

A scream of obscenities was followed by a thud as a drunken youth pushed another up against a hot-dog stall, raining blows on his face … as we passed McDonalds restaurant to see (another) youth, face covered in blood, being comforted by his friends … Across the road, a line of young drunks urinated in a shop doorway in full view of a crowd of young girls … It was a wet Friday night in Leeds as the city centre pubs disgorged their customers, many of them below the legal drinking age.

Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend has read a graphic account of trouble outside a public house on a wet Friday night. I understand that the amendments concern Sunday hours, not wet Friday nights.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Licensing Bill and the Welsh Development Agency Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Licensing Bill

Bill, as amended, (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend's intervention was a waste of time. He should have listened a little longer. He is prolonging what I have to say. The problem in Leeds is to be found in many towns and cities.

Mr. Couchman: Not on Sunday afternoons.

Sir Bernard Braine: Not yet, but certainly on other days. I have given evidence of that over and over again. My hon. Friend's ears are closed to the subject.
The report stated:
It was a wet Friday night in Leeds as the city centre pubs had disgorged their customers, many of them below the legal drinking age.
The House will he well advised to note what happens on Saturday afternoons and bank holidays after the Bill is put into operation before making any further extension of hours to those proposed by the Government and undermining traditional family quiet days such as Christmas day and Good Friday. Moreover, the amendments are likely to have a particularly marked effect on problems caused by alcohol abuse.
In Committee, the Minister conceded that a relaxation of the Sunday law would probably lead to an increase in consumption. That is a frank admission from the Government. It has been stated over and over again, the world over, that increases in consumption are accompanied by increases in social and physical harm. The Minister also argued against allowing airports to have extended licensing hours on Sundays, on the ground that to do so would be likely to give rise to an increase in drunken driving. There is good evidence to show that the Minister was right on both counts.
Dr. D. Smith of the Western Australia Alcohol and Drug Authority has shown that, following the introduction of Sunday alcohol sales in Perth, there was a 63·8 per cent. increase in the number of persons killed on Sundays in comparison to the other six days of the week. Similarly, in Brisbane, following the introduction of two two-hour drinking sessions on Sundays, road casualties increased by 130 per cent. If my hon. Friend would like me to tell him what is happening in other countries, I am ready to do so.
The introduction of a 10-hour Sunday hotel session in New South Wales was followed by a 22 per cent. increase in fatal road traffic accidents. The House already knows that the peak time for alcohol-related road accidents occurs when pubs are turning out, and especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
In introducing the Bill, the Government have taken no counter-measures to prevent such harm from increasing. It would be utter folly for the House to pass my hon. Friend's amendment without also strengthening the law against drinking and driving.
If libertarians want a person to be free to drink when and where he likes, and if the drink industry wants the opportunity to sell alcohol at any time during the day, they would make a better case if, at the same time, they were prepared to see the Department of Transport's "Don't drink and drive" policy better enforced by introducing random breath testing, increasing the penalties for such offences, and lowering the legal limit. Until such action is taken, removing the existing safeguards on alcohol consumption without replacing them with other measures is tantamount to aiding and abetting the killing and maiming of more people on our roads.
The amendment is trade-inspired. It promotes a drinking day rather than a family day. It is more likely to promote "one for the road" than "none for the road." By maintaining the present Sunday licensing law, there is a greater likelihood that pubs will open and sell tea and coffee—as was recommended by many hon. Members—and attractive alcohol-free drinks which all the family can enjoy, including the driver.

Mr. Colvin: How can a licensee start selling tea at 7 pm on a Sunday afternoon? If the Government accepted my amendment, the publican would have the flexibility to close at 2 pm and open at 5 pm. That is a far more practical proposition, and the publican could do what he wanted.

Sir Bernard Braine: How naive can my hon. Friend get? The whole object of the amendment—never mind where it comes from—is to increase the sale of alcohol. The House is not composed of fools. We know the purpose of the amendment,. Perhaps some people believe there is no great danger in the amendment, but many of us believe there is.
By maintaining the present Sunday licensing laws there is a better chance of getting public houses to open and sell tea, coffee and attractive alcohol-free drinks which all the family can enjoy. We should encourage rather than obstruct such a change in our drinking habits. I hope that the House will reject the amendment decisively.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I will be brief, but I want to say a few words because these are important matters. The cost of alcohol-induced accidents and alcohol-induced disease is a major problem. If we did not have to look after people suffering from an excess of alcohol, our National Health Service would not be in crisis. There would be a surplus of beds because so many of them at present are occupied by people with alcohol-induced difficulties and diseases.
I want to speak out clearly against the amendment. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said earlier that these amendments were trade-inspired. I am beginning to wonder whether Agnes Maude Royden's aphorism, that

The Church should no longer be satisfied to represent the Conservative party at prayer
is any longer true. It looks as if the Tory party is more concerned about praying to the brewers than being part of the Church of England.
Although I would not argue that Sunday should be closed or isolated from many human activities, some of which employ people, we must decide whether we are trying to preserve Sunday as a reasonably quiet day with some people having to work to provide services, such as the supply of electricity, staffing hospitals and running the railways and other public services. We accept that that is part of Sunday. We must also make a judgment not to extend the law to erode Sunday so that the precious nature of Sunday is removed for many people. That precious nature may stem from a religious preference, and, although I do not particularly share that, I honour and respect those people who wish to make a decision in that direction.
People may want to maintain Sunday as an emphatically family day. We must be careful not to allow Sunday to be eroded gradually by watering down legislative safeguards that have not been properly examined. As the right hon. Member for Castle Point said, a committee is examining the procedure. I regret the fact that the committee did not report to the House before the legislation was introduced.
We must consider another aspect of this matter—the workers. Wherever Sunday working is introduced, there should be safeguards for workers. There should be a conscience clause that people can exercise so that employers cannot force them to work on Sundays against their will. People may argue that that does not apply in some industries at the moment, and that is probably true. I regard that with considerable regret because employers can pressure people into working when they want to keep Sunday free.
Even when there is a conscience clause, it is often honoured more in its breach than its observance. It is difficult for people who are faced with the possibility of dismissal — not because they would not work on Sundays, but because an employer would choose another reason to dismiss someone who was not prepared to cooperate and work on Sundays.
That was the argument against the extension of Sunday trading. I do not think that that argument was properly made. The amendments contain no protection for workers. There is no protection in the parent legislation. I should have thought that if hon. Members were really concerned about the rights of those who differ from the movers of the amendments, they would include in their proposals safeguards so that people are not coerced into working on a Sunday if they do not wish to do so.
Lastly, representations have been made to me by members of the St. John the Evangelist parish church at Great Horton. They sent me a petition, containing more than 400 signatures, expressing opposition to the Bill. I share that opposition. The vicar, Canon H. M. Wigley, asked me specifically to oppose the legislation. That is why I am taking the opportunity to speak out against proposals for the incursion of yet more pub opening hours on a Sunday.
I do not like the Bill, but I certainly dislike those aspects which, as the right hon. Member for Castle Point put it so aptly, are trade-inspired. I do not like trade-inspired amendments, because we are making a judgment. My


judgment is that the two amendments will not add to the sum of human happiness or pleasure. They will cause more pain than pleasure. They will cause more discomfort and more disagreeable intrusions into a day which, when we examine the circumstances, we should try to keep as free as possible from difficulties for people who wish to take pleasure in a simple family day.

Sir Raymond Gower: For reasons similar to those expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I oppose the amendment. It is unfortunate that it was introduced at this late stage. It should have been considered on Second Reading, not on Report.
Nevertheless, I respectfully submit that, even today, the comparative peace of Sunday is invaluable to people, whether or not they are churchgoers. That peace can easily be eroded, and we would then regret its departure. It has become part of the life of this country; and it is difficult to envisage a seven-day working week, which is what we are in danger of achieving.
There have been many attempts to erode the difference of Sunday. Fortunately, the Shops Bill 1986 was defeated, but it would have been an invitation for the wholesale secularisation of Sunday, and the creation of a good deal of traffic, disorder and destruction of the environment, all of which would be undesirable.
In the eyes of its sponsors this is a modest change. Unfortunately, it is a move in the wrong direction. They are all incursions into the kind of Sunday that we have known, and in the long term they are cumulatively injurious to the environment. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that people who are under pressure to work on Sunday should have some protection. There was no such protection in the Shops Bill. There was not the complete protection that is desirable.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has given an assurance that the Government will not adopt the amendment. I hope that very few hon. Members will vote for it and that it will be defeated conclusively and comprehensively, as it is an undesirable move in the wrong direction.

Mr. Anderson: This is not the time to rehearse all the arguments about the special nature of Sunday, but, like the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I have the honour to be a patron of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. We look back with interest at the campaign which we waged in the House on the Shops Bill. We also look back to last Friday when the Government, after their experience on the Shops Bill, were much more wary on the Sunday Sports (No. 2) Bill, the key effect of which would be to open betting shops on Sunday.
The Government are treading warily because of their experience, in spite of the fact that the Home Secretary sees the need to make Sunday like any other day of the week. I do not believe that that is in tune with the wishes of the great majority of the people. I shall not rehearse the general arguments, but I am glad that the Government —at least for the moment—resist the amendment.

Mr. Couchman: The Government have been timid on the question of Sundays. A small adjustment, such as that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) to allow a slightly longer

lunchtime session on Sunday, would have satisfied many people who like to take their families out for lunch on Sunday. At present, opening hours are unequal on Sundays. As a result of the noble Lord Montgomery's Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987, restaurants and public houses with restaurants which are entirely separate may open throughout the entirety of Sunday afternoon to serve drinks with meals.
Public houses are constrained by the antiquated requirement whereby they can open only from 12 midday to 2 o'clock. If they wish to serve food during Sunday afternoon, they are still constrained by the 12 to 2 o'clock rule. As I said on Second Reading, the rule is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. There is more abuse of the opening and closing times at Sunday lunchtime, particularly in London, than in any other session during the week.
I take issue with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) that a modest increase in the number of hours allowed at Sunday lunchtime would lead to an enormous rise in crime, motor accidents, and so on. Sunday is a day when people would very much like to go out with their families for a meal and to have a slightly longer time in which to buy a drink with a meal in a public house which offers such good value in the food that it serves.
My right hon. Friend suggested that the amendment was inspired by the trade. If the trade, in its desire to serve its customers with what customers want on a Sunday, has inspired the amendment, that is nothing to be ashamed of. I accept what was said about this being a prodding rather than a probing amendment, on which I suspect that we will not get a result this evening, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the question of opening hours on Sunday is still alive, whereas, had they taken a modest step to increase the Sunday lunchtime session, the whole question of the permitted licensing hours on Sunday would have died not for the next five or 10 years but probably for 25 years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must expect the question to be raised again, even if the amendment does not get the approval of the House tonight.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has spoken modestly and persuasively. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoken in similar terms when he moved the amendment, he might have won more friends, although he was gracious enough to apologise and to withdraw his remarks which impugned the motives of some of his colleagues. None of us should ever do that. It set the debate off on a sour note.
Many of us believe that Sunday is special and different and that it should not become a duplicate Saturday. That is why I have resisted attempts to encourage Sunday trading. It is not that I do not believe that the law needs tidying up—it does—but that I do not want Sunday to become a second Saturday. We should be doing a great disservice to the British people if we took such a course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside prayed tourism in aid. Tourism is extremely important. It brings great revenue to the country. Tourists are welcome, but, although we welcome and must look after them, we do not have to change all the laws of the land to accommodate them. That is a slightly threadbare argument, and it should not be pushed too far.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Minister said that the amendment would be resisted. I hope that it will not be put to a vote. I hope that there can be a long and—I choose my words advisedly — sober look at the law governing Sundays in all respects to meet the legitimate designs and aspirations of everyone. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a small group of hotels.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, we should take into account the fact that people who can afford a fairly expensive meal can buy drinks, but those who cannot do not. We must nevertheless be extremely careful. The hours of trading must be restricted. Sunday must not become a second Saturday. We should therefore follow the lead offered by my hon. Friend the Minister and, if the House divides, we should support the Government against the amendment which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside is proposing unadvisedly.

Mr. Chris Butler: Although I represent an English constituency, I come from Wales. I must say that there is something reminiscent, in the arguments against the extension of flexibility on Sunday, of the arguments in the Principality against drinking on Sunday. Under the force of public opinion and democratic voting, flexibility has gradually been extended. I believe that even the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) will admit that Wales has not turned into a terrible Sodom and Gomorrah. Indeed, it has benefited.
The Government have implicitly accepted the arguments in favour of liberalising the licensing laws on the grounds of the extra amenity and employment that would be created. I should have thought that those arguments applied just as much—if not more so—to Sunday as to any other day of the week.
I am in favour of extending choice, provided that that does not overbear on the choice available to others to keep Sunday as they wish. I want the Government to be more radical on this matter.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I do not commend the amendment to the House for two reasons — one broad and one narrow. I shall deal with the latter first.
The proposals amount to flexible hours, but make no provision for enforcement, without which the amendment cannot sensibly be proposed. The amendment therefore falls on that narrow ground.
There is another point, which is of greater substance. The Government have made it wholly plain that we do not intend at the moment to change the law on Sundays. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an unequivocal statement to that effect, and I echoed it. Other people, including hon. Members, altered their stance on the basis of those assurances. It would be wrong to depart in any way from those assurances. I hope that I can persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to take up the same position.

Mr. Colvin: I am pleased that I tabled these two amendments, and that the more modest of the two has been debated. I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it has been an extremely good debate and I for one could not have been accused of closed ears. When

my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was on his feet, who could have closed his ears to such eloquence and power?
There have been strong arguments for and against some relaxation of the law on Sunday. The Government must now consider how they will honour the manifesto pledge to bring sense into the law on Sunday trading generally. I was proposing a modest step in that direction with licensing law reform. Having made my point, and having listened to the arguments, I can only hope that, when the other place comes to debate this matter, with the will of the House, it will pick up the banner and carry it forward, and that an amendment along the lines of mine will be tabled.
The anxiety expressed by Ministers about opposition to changing the law on Sundays arises mainly from their fear of what might happen in the other place. As hon. Members know, in this place we can be dragooned in the right direction to a certain extent, as we are being tonight. That is regrettable, when Opposition Members have the opportunity of a free vote, such as that which we enjoyed in the debate on the Shops Bill in 1986. With those thoughts in mind, and in the hope that an amendment like this may appear in the other place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
`(2) In section 60(1)(b) the words "The licensing magistrates may modify the permitted hours for bona fide English vineyards so that they begin no earlier than 12.00 noon for a total of no more than five and a half hours" shall be added.'.
This is an interesting and unusual issue which I feel that the House, even at this late hour, would like to hear a little about. There are 200 commercial vineyards in this country, 100 of which are open to the public. Increasingly, they are a tourist attraction, but they are also a sort of small business enterprise, and many of them are on farms, where farmers have heeded the Government's exhortations to diversify and have gone into the vineyard business. They are creating successful wines which are the envy of many parts of Europe and the world.
The problem, which is endemic, is the law relating to wine tasting or sampling, and the amendment specifically deals with that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he has heard the argument, will be able to say something helpful about the general point of tasting and sampling, beyond the scope of the amendment.
Let me deal first with the issues. At present, a tourist visiting an English vineyard can taste wines if that vineyard has an on-licence during the hours that a public house is open. One can go to an English vineyard—as one can go to one in Germany, France or Italy—but one can taste the wines and enjoy the quality that the vineyard has produced only during the hours of 11 am to 3 pm in the day and from 5.30 pm to 11 pm at night. It will be appreciated that vineyards will be open not at night, but only during the day. If the charabanc arrives before 11 am or after 3 pm, the people in it will be shown the wonderful vineyard but told that they cannot taste what it produces.

Sir Dudley Smith: I have been following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. Surely, if one goes into any


wine merchant's shop in a town or city with the possible intention to buy, the wine merchant will give one a tasting to enable one to make up one's mind. Is that against the law?

Mr. Steen: As always, my hon. Friend has made a telling point. He must have foreseen what I was about to say. If the charabanc travellers arrive at the vineyard outside on-licensing hours, they may find that the owner of the vineyard has had the forethought to apply for an off-licence.
In that case, in addition to the vinery, with tastings during on-licensing hours, he will have a separate building —which he will have had to build—containing an off-licence. The charabanc travellers will go into the off-licence and say, "I would like a bottle of wine." But they will not be allowed to taste it unless the tasting is free. The House will appreciate that if 1,000 visitors to the vineyard are all tasting the wine free in the off-licence, the modest farmer who is trying to diversify will be out of pocket very quickly; all his bottles of wine will be consumed at the off-licence outside on-licence hours.
There is a much more serious problem. If the visitors buy a bottle at the off-licence in the hours when the on-licence does not apply, they are not allowed to consume it on the premises. Therefore, arrangements have to be made to take the bottle off the premises — [An hon. Member: "To the charabanc."] Yes, but they cannot drink it in the charabanc if it is parked on the premises of the vineyard. The vineyard owner will have to make arrangements with the next-door farmer to construct a third building to which the travellers have to go to open their bottle of wine. If there are a corkscrew and glasses in that third building, the travellers can then taste the wine.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House—even at this late hour—will appreciate that the 1964 Act could never have envisaged this ridiculous state of affairs. In 1964 we did not have 200 commercial vineyards and the Government were not exhorting farmers to diversify because of our problems with food surpluses.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend is making an important point. I am sure that the Government will listen to his argument about the problem and attempt to put it right to encourage this growing sector of business.
Just outside Dorking in Surrey — not in my constituency, but not far from it—a new vineyard was planted two years ago. It is not producing yet, but its area is 120 acres, so it will be the biggest vineyard in Great Britain. It will be an important enterprise. It is a new business which has drawn on expertise from Germany and the rest of the continent. That is an example of how new firms can grow, which is exactly what the Government want.
Any impediment such as the licensing impediment to which my hon. Friend draws attention should be removed if we wish such businesses to expand. Wine growing is very suitable for small, new businesses—just as it is on the continent. I do not say that 120 acres is small; indeed, it is very large. However, there will be many opportunities for small vineyards to start up, creating new jobs and new enterprises. I wish my hon. Friend well and I hope that the Governent will pay attention to the point that he makes.

Mr. Steen: That was a helpful intervention. Although the vineyard to which my hon. Friend referred is not in his

constituency, I know that he is interested in vineyards—particularly in the new vineyard at Dorking, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Other vineyards not quite as large as that are well known to my hon. Friend. The largest one — Lamberhurst — is already 55 acres and is doing very well and many other vineyards, in constituencies from Berkshire to Gloucestershire and right across the country, are springing up fast and doing well.
I do not want to detain the House. I have set the scene of the problem and now want to explain briefly what will happen when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. The new law will help the vineyards — there is no doubt about that—because they can get an on-licence, not just for the pub opening hours as at present, but for the new pub opening hours of 11 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night—not that many people will want to taste wine at 5 o'clock in the evening until 11 o'clock at night.
Therefore, although this is not directly connected with the amendment, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will perhaps encourage the other place to consider whether the 12 hours — 11 am to 11 pm — could be slightly flexible so that the magistrates could not, heaven forbid, increase the number of drinking hours, but allow the hours to be from, say, 10 am to 10 pm or even from 9 am to 9 pm. There could still be 12 hours, but perhaps they could be moved a little. That discretion and flexibility would allow our English vineyards the scope that the rigidity of allowing them to open only from 11 am to 11 pm prevents. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say something which, although not immediately relevant to the amendment, will assist us when the Bill goes through another place.
I turn to the sharp end of the amendment. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will be attentive to this point because the 1964 Act, which will not be changed by the Bill, states that the number of hours on a Sunday will follow the identical hours of the pub openings. That means that on a Sunday, when the vineyards have their big tourist attractions, they are caught by the limitations of the pub openings as at present. That means that they cannot have any wine tasting on their on-licence before 12 o'clock midday and must stop their wine tasting immediately at 2 pm. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will realise that, from 7 pm to 10.30 at night on a Sunday, there is no point in having wine tasting, unless it is by candlelight or in the vaults.
The purpose of my amendment is to allow the magistrates some discretion to distribute exactly the same hours on Sunday, but to make those hours not from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock and 7.30 pm to 10 pm, but to allow the English vineyards to provide a sample of wine between 12 o'clock and 5.30 pm. That would cover just the type of family outing that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends talked about a moment ago. What nicer way is there of spending a Sunday afternoon than for a family to go out in their private car to look at some of the wonderful and enterprising vineyards and to enjoy a sample at the same time?

Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend has done us a great service by drawing this matter to the Government's attention and I hope that they will listen carefully. I endorse his point about family outings on


Sundays. My hon. Friend the Minister for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) mentioned earlier the problem of not having to change all our laws in this country just to suit tourists. When the three commercial vineyards in my constituency have opened on Sundays, they have attracted a completely different clientele—local families who want to see the process of wine making and the parents who, of course, want to enjoy the prospect of buying and drinking the product.

Mr. Steen: I am delighted that so many hon. Friends, who have vineyards in their constituencies, have made such points, because my hon. Friend the Minister will obviously be impressed by the strength of feeling among Conservative Members. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for making that important and telling point.
The amendment will give the magistrates in each locality a discretion to manoeuvre the hours on Sunday —but not to increase them—so that families can enjoy wine tasting on an on-licence. It does not alter the fact that English vineyards will still need to have an on-licence and an off-licence.
If the Minister rejects the amendment it will mean that at 2 o'clock sharp on a Sunday the vineyards—all 100—will have to have an off-licence. People will have to move from the on-licence, where they are sampling wines, to the off-licence. Unless those wines are provided free, people will have to buy a bottle and traipse over to the next-door farmer, with the corkscrew and the glasses, to sample the wines on their own in a little hut.
The Minister may believe that such problems are modest and trivial, but tens of thousands of people visit vineyards. The present ridiculous anachronism could be altered at a stroke by the Minister.
We are faced with the problems of on-licences, off-licences and flexi-hours on Sundays. I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken with such fervour would feel the same way if magistrates were given the discretion to switch and distribute the Sunday hours. The on-licence, instead of being confined from noon until 2 o'clock and from 7 pm until 10.30 pm, could be distributed differently.
I should declare an interest. I have been involved with the English Vineyards Association for many years and indeed, I have four vineyards in my constituency. Many hon. Members believe that the amendment is important. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to say something constructive that will enable us to believe that, if he cannot act immediately, he will do his best to get rid of the present anachronism. Many European visitors to our vineyards consider that anachronism to be out of place and out of character with the British habit of getting things done in an appropriate way.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The amendment deals exclusively with Sunday and the points that I made in the previous debate apply to this one. Therefore, I cannot offer my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) any hope.
My hon. Friend has clearly described the wider problems faced by British vineyard owners on days other than Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas day. My hon. Friend has described those problems so graphically that I

feel that I would like to reconsider the problem relating to those days to see whether there is anything that we can do to assist in resolving the problem that he has described.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) I am a non-executive director of the Bluebell railway and at Sheffield Park, at the end of that line, there is an English vineyard.
One of the problems that we face is that English wine has been cursed for years by ignorant people calling it "British" wine. In the past few months I have been able to introduce a major French wine grower to English wine. To his astonishment he found it drinkable. We all know that it is.
Is the Minister saying that he will look at the general issues with a view to telling his draftsmen, if he is convinced, that something must be done when the Bill reaches another place?

Mr. Keith Speed: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). In my constituency we have Biddenden vineyard, which won a prize for its Ortega 1986 vintage. Indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House chose it in the wine-tasting before Christmas.
My hon. Friend was right to underline the problems that over the years have been piled on English vineyards, but, despite those problems, they have thrived. At one time we had many Dutch, French, Belgian and German tourists passing through my constituency, and for them English wines were a joke until they tasted them. Now they enjoy them and like to taste them without all the nonsense that my hon. Friend described.
I hope that the Minister and his team at the Home Office will take a long hard look at this, so that we can make life easier for enterprising English vineyards which produce some of the best wine in the world.

Mr. John Browne: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting us halfway, and support entirely the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
England was excellent wine, but it is new wine on the world circuit, so is relatively unknown. Therefore, wine tasting is particularly important in order to sell it within the EEC and throughout the world. In the debate on the previous amendment, my hon. Friend the Minister clearly explained the problem with Sunday, and I accept what he said. But I urge him to persuade his hon. Friends to be flexible, because Sunday is a big day for bringing clients to vineyards. In Hampshire we have four big vineyards: Lymington, Swanmore, Ringwood and Beaulieu. Putting major investment into these alternative crops also fits the Government's policy of alternative use of farmland.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to consider days other than Sunday, but I urge him to press his colleagues to think again about Sunday.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and his moderate new clause. My hon. Friend the Minister certainly made a brief response which caused some disappointment.
Has the Minister held any discussions with his hon. Friends in the Department of Employment? He did not mention the employment aspects, which are great, or tourism in connection with English vineyards.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have not held such discussions. This matter has not been raised with me previously; it was first brought to my attention when the amendment was tabled. I am against nonsense and there seems to be a certain amount of nonsense involved. If we can resolve it, we shall do so. But I cannot help my hon. Friends about Sundays.

Mr. Gregory: I am grateful for that further comment from my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I hope that in another place he will consider getting out the old files; over many years there was enormous correspondence with his predecessors about this.
Britain has enjoyed English vineyard wines since the Roman era. Those who look at Christies' catalogues and others will know that vineyards now extend even into Wales. The new interest since 1945 is attractive, but there is nothing special in our having vineyards, although we now have many hundreds of acres under the vine.
Tonight we are faced with classic red tape. I do not believe that the Government wish to support red tape, but my hon. Friend the Minister is certainly putting up a good case for keeping the scissors in the cupboard. I wish he would take them out, cut the red tape, and consider the employment aspects of English vineyards and the English vineyard trail. What is so immoral about someone tasting a glass of wine on an afternoon in the south of England and even as far north as Yorkshire with a view to purchase? That should be considered in another place.
For all those reasons, I hope that the scissors will be used and that my hon. Friend's officials will consider the matter in another place.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and I am pleased to hear that the Minister wants to get rid of much of the nonsense.
I am chairman of the Conservative party's Back-Bench food and drink sub-committee. We recently held a wine-tasting, attended by many hon. Members. We tasted 10 wines, five English and five continental wines, in a blind tasting. The five English wines did very well, winning the first three prizes. That reflects the excellence of English wines and the desire of many people in this country to taste them.
I am grateful for what the Minister has said tonight about getting rid of some of the nonsense, and for dealing

with the problems explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams about days other than Sundays. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring forward proposals in the not too distant future.

Mr. David Nicholson: I do not wish to detain the House, except to say that I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
I first became aware of English wines recently at a reception organised by an extraordinarily paradoxical body, the Milk Marketing Board. I support the proposal and hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will carefully consider it. Perhaps he will reflect that we might not have found ourselves in the present inflexible position in respect of Sunday if the Home Office, in the last Session, had not got us in such a mess over Sunday trading.

Mr. Paul Marland: I apologise for not having been present throughout the debate. I have been detained elsewhere on important constituency business.
I wish to add my voice in support of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), because there is a vineyard in my constituency and I respect the way in which it has sought to bring employment into a rural area. It appears to be inhibited by these petty restrictions.

Mr. Steen: I should like to rise quickly to prevent any more of my hon. Friends from rising, as I know that quite a number of them planned to intervene. I want to curtail that by saying that this has been an interesting debate. It has shown the strength of feeling on the Conservative Back Benches about English vineyards and the anachronisms and antiquated laws which affect them.
I was tempted to press the amendment to a Division, but that would be quite inappropriate after the Minister's generous and flexible response in recognising the strength of feeling on this matter. It caught him by surprise, so he wants time to consider the issue. In view of his flexibility and intelligence and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) supported most of my speech, the Sunday trading lobby may not be opposed to a little flexible discretion by the licensing magistrates.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting speech, which has already evoked a little promise from the Minister. I advise him not to spoil it.

Mr. Steen: Whenever my right hon. Friend gives advice, one is wise to take it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

RESTRICTION ORDERS

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 18, after 'premises', insert
`or a number of licensed premises'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 8, in page 3, line 19, after 'premises', where it first occurs insert
`or a number of licensed premises'.
No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'vicinity', and insert `surrounding district'.

Sir Bernard Braine: One of the illusions fostered about the Bill is that we must choose between individual liberty on the one side and health and well-being on the other. The issue of public order makes it plain that the choice is between the liberty of one person, or group of people, to drink in public houses and the liberty of others not to suffer unacceptable disturbance in consequence of their drinking.
I tabled this amendment because I do not believe that the Bill achieves a proper balance between these two objectives and it is, therefore, likely to fail and to facilitate the increased occurrence of disorder on our streets, while giving the licensing justices inadequate powers to deal with such events.
The Government claim that the Bill already contains adequate safeguards in the form of restriction orders. The Bill allows the licensing justices to impose an afternoon break when disturbance, annoyance, noise and disorderly conduct occur within or in the immediate vicinity of an individual licensed premises. That is most certainly a safeguard and I welcome it, but it is not nearly enough.
In Committee the Minister implicitly conceded the Bill's inadequacy every time he reminded hon. Members of the narrowness of the concept of restriction orders. He said that a restriction order was narrow in character and designed to achieve an entirely local result. For that reason the right to make application for a restriction order was limited to those people whose life was likely to be disrupted. By that he meant the disruption by noise or disturbance of the lives of those living in the immediate vicinity of a particular licensed premises.
The difficulty with the Bill is that, while disorder is often confined to within the public house itself, or to its immediate vicinity, there are also many occasions on which disorder spreads much further afield. The Bill gives the licensing justices no powers to deal with that kind of problem. Fights, or other kinds of disorderly conduct, may spill out not just on to the pavement immediately outside the pub; they may occur en route from one pub to another, or may arise as a result of drinking in a number of pubs and occur some distance away — on the way home, in the local park, or elsewhere. It is a very serious problem.
We all know of instances of drunken youths—I say "youths" because in the majority of cases those involved appear to be below the age of 25, if not considerably younger—going around in gangs and causing havoc in city centres and elsewhere. While the drinking may be done in a public house, or in a number of public houses, the

disorder occurs somewhere else—not necessarily in the immediate vicinity of the pub where the alcohol was consumed.
In Committee the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) referred to the kind of incidents that I have in mind when he quoted from a report in the Yorkshire Evening Post. It is worth while repeating the words:
'Gangs of drunken youths roaming the streets of the county's towns and cities cause apprehension and fear' said the chief constable. 'Street nuisances, disorderly behaviour, vandalism and crime are often caused by individuals who have consumed too much alcohol … Young males … in an intoxicated state roam about or congregate in the streets … and behave in ways that they would not even contemplate sober'.
The point to which I want to draw attention is that there is no suggestion in that report of the disorder occurring within or in the immediate vicinity of any individual pub or club. Perhaps I might rub in the point by referring to a cutting from another local newspaper on 7 December 1987. It quoted the chief constable as blaming the late-night opening policy for the growing problem of public disorder on the streets. He said:
between 2 am and 4 am, particularly at weekends, around 2,000 18 to 25-year-olds are congregating in the city centre. Disorder is now escalating and, to control the situation further, adjustment to the system of policing has become necessary and overtime is being incurred … one year's overtime costs are being projected at £115,000. This is unacceptable.
It is highly significant in the context of this debate that the city in question is Aberdeen. There is little suggestion there of the great improvement in public order that licensing relaxation in Scotland is supposed to have brought about. A hint of why the official drunkenness statistics for Scotland have declined so steeply is the comment of a superintendent of the Grampian police: that police resources are so stretched at weekends that they had to let many people off with a warning because they could not afford officers to leave the street to take offenders into custody. The city is Aberdeen. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will know whether or not that statement is exaggerated.
Many arrests for offences other than drunkenness are, however, made. Speaking to the Aberdeen licensing board in September 1987, the chief constable, Mr. Alistair Lynn, said:
The threat of a lot of public disorder in Aberdeen city centre remains very much a reality.
He informed the Aberdeen licensing board that, in the previous month, 140 arrests had been made in the Union street area alone; 67 of them were for breaches of the peace, 37 for assault and 13 for vandalism, but apparently none for drunkenness.
If we are honest with ourselves, this is taking place in every city. It is taking place not far from my constituency, in Southend on one side and Basildon on the other. Therefore, the same consideration applies to England and Wales.
We should be extremely sceptical about the claim that drunkenness offences are declining. Any magistrate will confirm that the majority of criminal damage and breach of the peace cases are committed by people under the influence of alcohol. It may be that officially recorded offences are declining because charges other than drunkenness are being brought.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister rejected my suggestion that these matters should be properly


monitored. This is one of the best examples of where information is needed if policy and legislation are to match the reality of the matter.
11 pm
I cited the example of Aberdeen for two reasons. First, the picture of Scotland that is so assiduously painted by proponents of extended drinking hours may be seriously misleading. There is every reason to be extremely wary of the effects of extended drinking hours on public order. Secondly, the disorder described in press reports is precisely the kind that the Bill in its present form does not take into account because it does not necessarily occur within the immediate vicinity of licensed premises.
The Aberdeen report describes disorder occurring during the night. There is a clear danger that the Bill will increase the chances of similar outbreaks occurring during the afternoon, when there is likely to be even more disruption to the local population. Licensing justices will need extra powers to deal with such eventualities. To do so, they will need the power to impose restriction orders, not merely on individual public houses but throughout an area.
The existing provisions of the Bill to deal with the sort of problems that I have described will be extremely cumbersome to operate. It would be necessary for the licensing justices to deal with each licensed premises separately.
Significantly, the Erroll committee, whose recommendations provide much of the rationale for the Bill, recommended exactly the safeguard contained in my amendment. Its report stated:
Licensing justices … should be empowered on application, to make an order, if satisfied that it is in the interests of public order … requiring any one or a number of licensed premises to close for a period of up to two consecutive hours at a time before 7 pm.
This is a far more useful proposal than the unduly narrow concept of restriction orders enshrined in the Bill. Not only would it give the licensing justices more effective powers; it would save court time and, thus, costs to the taxpayer.
It may be argued that the police already have powers to prosecute individuals behaving in an unruly manner and that restricting pub opening hours is not, therefore, a necessary or an appropriate means of dealing with these problems. My answer to that is that of course the police have the power to prosecute individuals, but after the disorder has occurred, assuming they have the manpower and resources available. The case of Aberdeen suggests that they may not.
We are considering the need to prevent disorder occurring in the first place. That is what legislation should be about; not tinkering with the problem as the Bill does in so many different aspects.
The police have powers to prosecute individuals behaving in an unruly manner at football matches, but that is not regarded as an argument against restriction. Alcohol is banned on the way to and from football matches. The principle is the same. Why should law-abiding citizens, who want nothing more than to go about their business in peace, have to tolerate large areas of their towns and cities becoming no-go areas of the antics of groups of people who have spent too much time and money in the pub? If serious disorder associated with and arising from drinking in public houses and clubs occurs on one occasion—perhaps a Saturday afternoon — it is

likely to occur on others in the future, and the licensing justices should have the power to order the afternoon closure of pubs in the particular area of the town concerned.
I do not suggest for one moment that the exercise of the power given by my amendment will be a daily occurrence, but there are particular times of the year, such as the Christmas holidays or the summer season at seaside resorts, when the licensing justices of the population whom they serve will need this power, and they will not thank us if they do not have it. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Despite the passionate speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), I am afraid that I cannot commend the amendment to the House. The restriction order deals with particular problems that emanate from particular pubs, but the amendment enables the court to make a restriction order in respect of any licensed premises, including those that are not directly concerned with the public problems that give rise to the application in the first place. I cannot believe that that is just.
There is another consideration which makes it even more unjust. Under the power proposed by my right hon. Friend, the court could make a restriction order in respect of a licensed premises, the licensee not knowing of the application and having no knowledge of the peril in which he stood. I do not believe that that is right either, nor I think does my right hon. Friend.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 7, in line 10, at end insert
'; or (d) any head teacher of a school in the neighbourhood.'.

Mrs. Taylor: This is a straightforward amendment but it concerns a significant point which we tried to explore in Committee and which I should have thought would have been resolved by this stage. The amendment deals with the role of a head teacher in applying for a restriction order in the area of the school. At the beginning of our proceedings, the National Association of Head Teachers expressed concern about the impact that the Bill might have on children's drinking habits. We can understand the dangers. When pubs are open in the afternoon, there is a great temptation for children to absent themselves from school or to go out and drink at lunchtime. A large number of teachers are increasingly concerned about the number of their pupils drinking and see the legislation as providing new temptations.
One measure which we suggested in Committee was that head teachers should be able to apply for a restriction order, thus limiting the availability of alcohol by restricting the hours during which pubs in the vicinity may be open. It is relevant that head teachers should he able to apply for a restriction order because teachers arid schools are often aware of which public houses are responsible for selling alcohol to their young people. Therefore, they should have a role in applying for restriction orders. It is impossible to understand why the Minister has not conceded this point.
In Committee, the Minister said that he hoped that the word "occupier" would cover this point. He said that he


could give no guarantee that that was the case, and promised that he would return in Committee or on Report with amendments if he found that the existing wording was not satisfactory. Since our discussions, I have checked with several justices clerks, whose experience is well recognised and well respected. Some have said that they would interpret "occupier" as covering a head teacher of a school, but others have said that they would not. So there is a clear need for clarification, which can come only from the legislation. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I entirely agree that head teachers should have a right to make the application. I said so in Committee and I say so again today. I am afraid that the amendment is probably not the best way of going about that, because there is a danger that if we singled out headteachers we would exclude from the ranks of those able to make an application some people who are not strictly occupiers, but who are managing a business in the neighbourhood.
It could be said that we should have put our tackle in order and tabled a proper amendment; I agree with that criticism, and I apologise. In the other place we shall table an amendment that makes it p1,111) that head teachers and, when appropriate, other people who are running businesses who are not occupiers are in a position to make an application— sorry that our tackle is not in order.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We accept the Minister's apology and are glad to hear that he intends to table an amendment in due course. I am not sure whether someone who manages a business in a neighbourhood should have the same rights as a head teacher, who has a more specific and meaningful role to play in terms of restriction orders. On the basis that the Minister will deliver the promise that he has made this time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

ABOLITION OF RENEWALS OF EXTENDED HOURS ORDERS

Amendment made: 10, in page 5, line 9, leave out
'order", where first occurring,' and insert shall" '.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Clause 8

REVOCATION OF JUSTICES' LICENCES AND CANTEEN LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 8, line 15, leave out from 'sessions' to 'other' in line 16.
No. 12, in page 8, line 18, at end insert
',either of their own motion or on the application of any person.'.

No. 13, in page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Licensing justices may only exercise the power conferred by this section if, at least twenty-one days before the commencement of the licensing sessions in question, notice in writing of the proposal to exercise the power or, as the case may be, to make the application has been given to the holder of the licence and, in the case of a proposed application, to the clerk to the licensing justices, specifying in general terms the grounds on which it is proposed the licence should be revoked.'.
No. 14, in page 8, line 43, leave out from 'sessions' to `other' in line 44.
No. 15, in page 8, line 46, at end insert
',either of their own motion or on the application of any person.'.
No. 16, in page 9, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Licensing justices may only exercise the power conferred by this section if, at least twenty-one days before the commencement of the licensing sessions in question, notice in writing of the proposal to exercise the power or, as the case may be, to make the application has been given to the holder of the licence and, in the case of a proposed application, to the clerk to the licensing justices, specifying in general terms the grounds on which it is proposed the licence should be revoked.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 3

MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 15, line 8, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.
No. 18, in page 16, line 29, at end insert—
'. In section 169(1) (selling to persons under 18), for the words "subsections (4) and (10)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (4)".'.
No. 19, in page 16, line 29, at end insert—
'. In section 168(3)(a) (due diligence defence), for the word "used" there shall be substituted the words "exercised all".'.
No. 20, in page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 42 and insert—

Extension to certain proceedings under this Act of section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
196A. — (1) For the purposes of section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (procuring the attendance of witnesses etc. at the hearing of a complaint) the following proceedings shall be treated as the hearing of a complaint—

(a) proceedings on an application—

(i) for the grant of a justices' licence;
(ii) for the revocation of a justices' licence or canteen licence; or
(iii) for the making, variation or revocation of a restriction order; and

(b) proceedings in connection with the exercise by licensing justices of the power to revoke a justices' licence or canteen licence of their own motion.

(2) Licensing justices before whom any such proceedings as are mentioned in subsection (1) above take place shall be treated for the purposes of section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area constituting the licensing district.".'. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 17, line 39, at end insert—
`In section 169 — in subsection (1), the word "knowingly", in the first place where it occurs; and subsection (10).'

No. 22, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—


`1977 c. 45.
The Criminal Law Act 1977
In Schedule 6, the entries relating to section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964.




In Schedule 12, in the entry relating to the Licensing Act 1964, paragraph 2.'.— [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 33.

Division No. 167]
[11.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Alexander, Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Allason, Rupert
Gorst, John


Amess, David
Gow, Ian


Arbuthnot, James
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Aspinwall, Jack
Gregory, Conal


Atkinson, David
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baldry, Tony
Grist, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grylls, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Sevan, David Gilroy
Hanley, Jeremy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hannam, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayes, Jerry


Bowis, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hill, James


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hoyle, Doug


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Irvine, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Janman, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Cope, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knowles, Michael


Day, Stephen
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Foulkes, George
MacGregor, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maclean, David


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maples, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, John (Hendon S)






Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Parry, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Tredinnick, David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Turner, Dennis


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Price, Sir David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rattan, Keith
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Riddick, Graham
Wallace, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Woodcock, Mike


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


NOES


Anderson, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Beith, A. J.
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Mullin, Chris


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter


Dalyell, Tarn
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Faulds, Andrew
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Fearn, Ronald
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Flynn, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Foster, Derek
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Illsley, Eric
Dr. Lewis Moonie.


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Welsh Development Agency Bill

Considered in Committee.

[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

Clause 1

INCREASE OF FINANCIAL LIMIT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: We are grateful for the opportunity to explore further the finances of the Welsh Development Agency and the work which we hope those moneys will provide in our communities. The Bill lays down new financial limits for the WDA. It is right for hon. Members to take the opportunity to explore what the agency can achieve within those limits in the development and regeneration of our communities.
We had a useful and constructive debate on Second Reading. It was made clear that the Opposition support the Bill and the work of the agency. But we want to elicit information about what the agency will do within its new financial limits and investigate further its budget. The Secretary of State told hon. Members on Second Reading that the budget would be £113 million and he gave the amounts to be spent on various aspects of the agency's work. We can now take the opportunity of the Committee stage to prise from the Minister more details of the budget.
The Secretary of State told us that the financial provision for the industrial estates role of the agency would be encompassed in the broader financial limits of the Bill. He explained that the budget for the industrial estates function of the agency for the next financial year would be £44 million and said:
Together with the increased factory rents and sales that are taking place, it means that the total potential expenditure for the agency for this coming year will increase to £113 million-31 per cent. more than the budget for the current financial year.
This is not a Second Reading debate, so we can probe what he meant. The first question for the Minister is what is meant by the words:
Together with the increased factory rents and sales that are taking place".
What proportion of the industrial estates budget for the next financial year will be financed by sales of factories and rent increases? Both are significant to our communities, especially rents. For several years, hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Labour Members, have made representations to the agency about its rental policy as we fear that, as a result of rent increases, some of the marginal companies in agency property could be threatened with bankruptcy.
11.30 pm
Sales are important for another reason. Everyone knows that a balance of available property is vital in any commercial portfolio. How much pressure is there — I suspect that there is considerable pressure from the Treasury—to sell a considerable amount of the agency's estates? What assumption of sales has been made to finance the increased budget for the industrial estates?
The Secretary of State also said:
I have also agreed new mechanisms in which the agency can use its finances to attract a considerable volume


of private investment into new factory and commercial building."—[Official Report, 28 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 559.]
New mechanisms should not go through the House on the nod without our knowing what they are and what method of financing will be used to make them effective. If it is a new departure, we need much more explanation of what it is about. It was not us, but the Secretary of State, who drew attention to it.
The remainder of the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading did not describe the new mechanisms, so I examined the agency's announcements. I looked at a glossy brochure called, "Property Development Programme", which refers to this matter but does not spell out the new mechanisms and the financial arrangements to make them work.

Sir Raymond Gower: I assume that the hon. Gentleman accepts the desirability of attracting private investment.

Mr. Rowlands: We are justified in probing the Government. The Secretary of State has talked about new mechanisms, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows what they are. I am trying to find out. All I could find was not in an official document but in a WDA press release which accompanied the glossy brochure I mentioned. It gives us some insight into what the mechanisms will be. To my knowledge, it is the only source of information on these new mechanisms. We did not get any information on Second Reading, and we are hoping for some when the Minister replies.
Under the title "Private Partnership", the press release refers to an "important new ingredient" in the new property development initiative
a new grant facility recently agreed by the Secretary of State for Wales.
The agency and the Secretary of State might agree, but the Committee does not know what the terms of those agreements are, and we were not told about them. I am not complaining or objecting, but if a new grant facility is to be made, and used to develop private estates, the Committee should know about it.
The press release continues:
The Initiative is designed to encourage private development to complement the Agency's own property programme, and more generally to encourage the participation of private developers in industrial development in Wales.
Again, I am not complaining about the objectives. However, the press release also says, and this is what I question:
The WDA will promote specific schemes where it might be prepared to offer a grant to private developers to help make some of these projects a viable proposition. Initial priority will be given to projects at Deeside, the Delyn Enterprise Zone, Cardiff, Bridgend, and Swansea.
Is this grant facility to be confined in this fashion? What is the grant facility? What proportion of any private development scheme is to be financed by grant? Under what head of the WDA's budget is this grant to be made to private property development? I am not objecting to it, but we should know how it is to be operated, in what form, what sort of money we are talking about and in what proportion. More important, what about its geographic location and spread?
The press release goes on:

A range of other measures also aimed at assisting private sector investment will be available throughout North and South Wales, including risk sharing partnerships, and help with feasibility studies and marketing of new developments.
Again, I am not objecting, but these are new mechanisms, new ideas and new grant facilities. I may be less than diligent, but the only information about this that I have read comes in a press release from the WDA. Therefore, I want a much more detailed explanation from the Minister and I want to know why this private property development grant facility is initially confined to that particular area.
I asked the Minister to explain my next point on Second Reading, but, understandably, he did not get round to answering. I asked him, in the context of my constituency, how private initiatives of the kind that has been described would work. In the section on the industrial estates property called, "Heads of the Valleys region" I read, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that the regional office
identified the following opportunities locally for possible private sector development — Goatmill Road, Merthyr —small factories".
I did not realise that what is behind these mechanisms for attracting private investment in property development is a grant facility by the WDA. Is this area to be the subject of possible grant facility arrangements under the new mechanisms to promote private commercial industrial development?
An opportunity is identified in the property development programme; a new mechanism is announced by the Secretary of State; a press release tells us that it is a grant facility, although implying that it will be confined to certain geographical areas and enterprise zones. I want to know what is in it for Merthyr and Rhymney. I want a straightforward answer because it is extremely important to us. There is a general issue of principle, too. If the Government intend to introduce a new grant facility arid new arrangements, the Committee needs to know their exact character and nature.
When the Secretary of State opened the Second Reading debate he told us in part about the size arid character of the WDA's budget. He gave us figures for derelict land and for property — for commercial and industrial development. He did not give us figures for the WDA's budget for 1988–89—on WINvest, for example — or for the WDA's venture capital role. When I pressed the Minister during his wind-up speech he confirmed that the venture capital figure for 1987–88 was £10 million. I am glad to say that he also confirmed that he saw the venture capital role of the agency as vital, because we are worried that it might be pared and clipped. Will the Minister tell us the budgets for WlNvest and the venture capital side in 1988–89? He gave us some of the figures, but not all of them.
My main point concerns the role and finances of the WDA in relation to the needs of our valley communities. The Secretary of State was very sensitive when my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) dared to query whether the much-heralded valleys initiative was included in or excluded from the WDA budget and the known public expenditure figures. My right hon. Friend will remember that question, which got the Secretary of State to his feet on Second Reading. The Secretary of State was rather testy about my right hon. Friend's prompting. That exchange appears in column 562 of Hansard on 28 January 1988. My right hon. Friend made a fair point. It is not Opposition Members who have


been advertising and trailering a great new valleys initiative; it is the Secretary of State himself. He gave an exclusive interview to the Merthyr Express and another exclusive interview to the Western Mail—two exclusive interviews—trailering a major new valleys initiative.
We were enthused and encouraged and we have been waiting with great interest for the announcement. It would not have been unfair of us to draw the conclusion from those exclusive interviews that there would be a major new special budget for the valleys initiative. It was perfectly reasonable for us to conclude that there would be a major new budgetary announcement; indeed, I assume that that is still in the pipeline.
Curiously, in the exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West on Second Reading, the Secretary of State appeared to imply that at least the industrial estates side of the great valleys initiative had already been announced and that it was incorporated in the new programme of factory development that the WDA had announced that day.
I should like the Minister to clear up this point. Has the factory side, the industrial estates corporation side, of the Secretary of State's major new valley initiative, for which we are all waiting with great interest and enthusiasm, already been announced or is there more to come? Is it part and parcel of what was announced on 28 January, or is there a new package of industrial estates development?
11.45 pm
It is not our fault that we are confused about what the valley initiative is, and about what is involved in it. Are Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr and Cynon Valley the announced parts of the industrial estates corporation side of the so-called valley initiative?
Even more interesting is an answer that I received yesterday to a written question that I tabled to the Secretary of State asking him whether the valleys initiative budget was included in or additional to the public expenditure totals that were published in the Command Paper on public expenditure a week or two ago. The reply that I received yesterday stated that they were inclusive and that the valley initiative is buried in the public expenditure totals in the Command Paper.
There is a lot to be done and some questions need to be asked. If the valleys initiative is buried in those totals —[Interruption.] Indeed there should be some answers. My hon. Friends should not be too sceptical. I am sure that the Minister will give clear answers to all of this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Since when?"] I have greater faith in human nature than some of my hon. Friends. Anyway, as a result of yesterday's answer to the question that I had tabled, plus the exchanges that we had, it is at least clear that a largish proportion of the great new valleys initiative is already available in one form or another somewhere in the House, but we cannot find it. We want to know where the totals are. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the initiative."] Again, I am sorry that my hon. Friends are showing scepticism. I am willing to suspend judgment. Let us find out. I hope that there is a valleys initiative.
I am somewhat disappointed that the valleys initiative will be inclusive in the existing totals because that means that we are competing for existing resources within the Principality, whereas I thought that it would be additional money. We all thought—it was the whole notion of the

two exclusive interviews that we have read—that there would be additional money in an additional budget, over and above the sums within the known totals.
I should like the Minister to answer two questions. First, has the valley initiative — the industrial estates commercial side—already been announced by the WDA on 28 January, or is there more to come? Secondly, will he give us some idea of when the initiative will be announced and in what form? I ask that because I am concerned that the valleys initiative should be a visionary, positive and forward-looking concept. Since the Secretary of State's interviews one other major piece of new information has become available to us. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has published an interesting and constructive report, entitled "The South Wales Valleys—An Agenda for Action". I think that the Secretary of State gave it a positive and constructive welcome, although I am not quite sure what he thought about it.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) looks at the record, he will discover that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had announced his own valleys initiative and his intention to make a further statement upon it before "The South Wales Valleys: An Agenda for Action" report appeared.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that the Minister is correct, I am not suggesting otherwise.
I want to know how many of the interesting ideas contained in that document will be incorporated in the new valleys initiative and how they are to be financed.
The clause will raise the financial limits available to the WDA. The report "The South Wales Valleys: An Agenda for Action" contained 57 recommendations and proposals and more than 40 of them require WDA action, participation and funding. That demonstrates the relationship between the report and clause 1.
I agree that the Secretary of State announced his valleys initiative before the report was published, but how many of the report's recommendations will be incorporated in any valley initiative? I am sure that my hon. Friends will not be surprised to discover that I am anxious to know how many of the recommendations relating to my constituency will be incorporated in the Secretary of State's valleys initiative.
Under the title "A pilot area project" on pages 13–14, paragraphs 220–221, the report recommends that Merthyr Tydfil should be a pilot area project. It recommends seven or eight major action measures for the Merthyr project. All of them would involve WDA financing. The report mentions the preparation of a town development appraisal, key site properties and development opportunities. Indeed, it is pertinent to my constituency that the report discusses the relocation of the WDA's regional office from Hirwaun to Merthyr. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) is not here, because that is a sensitive issue.
The report also recommends the development of a key strategic industrial site at Pentrebach by the WDA with forward investment in advance factory provision. The list of specific recommendations by the authors of the report deserves a serious and genuine response from the Secretary of State. They are part and parcel of the WDA's budget and needs for 1988–89.
How many of the ideas in the report will be incorporated in the valleys initiative and, therefore, be the subject of financial requirements from the WDA in the coming year?

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Has my hon. Friend also considered derelict land? The chief executive of the WDA made it clear to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that all the derelict land in Wales would be removed by the end of the century. Is my hon. Friend confident that that goal will be met by the proposals in the Bill?

Mr. Rowlands: I have not dwelt on derelict land reclamation sites tonight because I discussed them on Second Reading, when I pointed out that one of the most interesting recent reports by the Welsh Coalfield Communities suggested that we were scarcely even-stevens with the pace of land reclamation; that as much reclamation was being created as we were clearing, despite tremendous efforts; and that a budget of £25 million a year was required to make inroads. The budget will be about £20 million so it will fall short of a known need. I pressed that point on Second Reading and do not want to weary the Committee by going over the same argument.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend consider the problem that will be posed by the pit closures announced today? In mid Glamorgan the programme of reclamation must inevitably fall behind. As additional closures are announced, the programme that has already been approved will not keep pace with, let alone match, the additional problems caused by new closures.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend poignantly describes the position. On Second Reading several of us said that a problem of the pace of derelict land reclamation was its tight connection with pit closures. I did not draw attention to the disastrous news today about pit closures because I hope that the two pits are not yet lost and that we can dissuade the board from proceeding with two disastrous additional pit closures.
My hon. Friend is right that If British Coal goes ahead with the proposals and attains the closures—I do not know the Abernant site but I certainly drive past the Lady Windsor site every week — there will be an enormous extra burden of land clearance. I hope to goodness that we do not reach that stage and that the pits may be saved. If they are not, a major additional problem of land reclamation and dereliction will be added to an already heavy historic burden.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: In addition, it is important for the Minister to bear in mind that the implications for the WDA budget and expenditure are important in terms of knock-on effects. British Rail, for example, relocated its freight depot at Pantyffynnon close to the Wernos washery. If the closures go ahead, with the consequent knock-on effect to that rail freight depot, we shall have an additional need for additional funding for the WDA. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the closure of the pits is important and must be prevented.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), who knows the details of these matters, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will develop the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell).
I was drawing the Committee's attention to the major recommendations in "The South Wales Valleys: An

Agenda for Action", especially the preparation of a town development appraisal. On Second Reading I asked the Minister about the matter, but he did not answer. I do riot complain because he could not answer all the points. But now is his chance. One of the new functions of the WDA is the creation of an urban renewal unit which will play an important role in the commercial, non-industrial development in some of our communities. I am not clear what its function will be and how its function, expenditure and budget will relate to the urban development grants which will remain with the Welsh Office.
I understand that the urban renewal unit of the agency will not be a grant-giving body. It will be a lending agency. How will it relate to what remains of the urban development grant system in the Welsh Office? We hope that it will help to develop and diversify the economy of local communities such as mine. We watched with modest envy the developments in Cardiff and Swansea and we want to see such developments extend into our valley communities. We are interested to know what role the urban renewal unit of the Welsh Development Agency will play in that.
Vital questions remained unanswered on Second Reading. This is our chance to get some answers. The agency is one of the most important and powerful instruments for the regeneration and renewal of our communities. Some people in the agency have dubbed me Oliver Rowlands, the man who always asks for more. I do ask for more because the communities that I represent have given so much historically and have every right to demand more. By supporting the Bill, we hope that we shall get the extra resources to develop the communities that we represent.

12 midnight

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has made a far-reaching speech. It is the Opposition's job to probe, examine and question. I do riot wish to be offensive, but he would have made his job easier if he had tabled precise amendments. It would also have made it easier for the Minister to produce precise answers. It is impassible, in these circumstances, for the Minister to have any foreknowledge of the subjects likely to be raised.

Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Opposition Members considered means of amending the Bill, but, when the money resolution on a one-clause Bill has been passed, there are only limited ways in which we can amend the Bill. We cannot amend the figures because they were approved in the money resolution, so we must try to amend the Bill through a clause stand part debate.

Sir Raymond Gower: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but he might have considered the matter further.
We now see the agency in a different light than we did some years ago. It had a precise role in those days when its chief function was to erect advance factories and to arrange for the clearance of disfigured parts of the landscape after the closure of coal pits. It was possible to forecast expenditure very precisely, but it is now difficult to be so precise. For example, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to the agency's function of attracting private investment. We cannot say how much private investment might be attracted, but we hope that the agency will be successful.
The hon. Gentleman rightly expressed concern about the mention of Deeside, Cardiff, Swansea and Bridgend to the exclusion of the valleys. He was right to stress the importance of the valleys, with their very great problems. Nevertheless, he should not go so far as to try to block development in Cardiff, Swansea and Deeside. That would be fatal. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is right to do everything he can for his constituency, but it is short sighted of him to try to block the Cardiff bay development.

Mr. Alun Michael: One of the precise questions that was asked in last week's debate but that the Minister failed completely to answer was why there was no precision about what the WDA would be doing for Cardiff. Firms wish to develop there and factory and workshop space is required, but that need is not being met. Does the hon. Gentleman join with me in hoping that the Minister will answer that question at the end of the debate?

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not dissent from that, but my point is that it is impossible to promote great expansion in Merthyr and in Cynon valley if the natural development of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, which lie near to the motorway, is slowed down. Some companies might be persuaded to go there, whereas even very large inducements would not persuade them to go further. Nevertheless, the very real needs of the valley communities must be attended to.
I am impressed by the number of factories that are to be built in some of those areas. That is the dispute to which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred—the dispute between his right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Our impression was that the right hon. Gentleman was treating factory building in those areas as chickenfeed, but that is not so.
I foresee that the agency will have both its old functions of clearing dereliction and building factories — in particular, advance factories and those that are ordered by industrialists who intend to come to Wales—and also new functions. It will act as a finance house, as a merchant bank. That part of the agency's work will be vital. However, it is difficult to foresee the extent of its success or failure. I hope that its success will be tremendous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a wonderful job in publicising the work of the agency. He has a splendid sense of public relations. It is a great asset.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief intervention in this short debate. It should never be forgotten that if some Conservative Members had had their way when they were in opposition—including perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales, who in those days did not take quite such an interest in Wales as he does now—we should not be having this debate, because there would have been no Welsh Development Agency.
I welcome the increase in the financial limit of the agency, but there must not be untrammelled euphoria about it. There should be a larger increase in the ceiling than that proposed and there should be an acceleration in the rate at which we spend the WDA's money, because in

the projected planned expenditure for Wales over the next three years — 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 — we can expect a fall compared with the level for 1987–88.
Another reason why I want a higher ceiling for the WDA—it has already been alluded to in the debate—is rather more important, particularly with regard to my constituency. This morning we heard the terrible announcement by the management of British Coal in south Wales that it intends to close the Abernant colliery and the washery at Lairgwaith, which is also in my constituency. It is a devastating blow for the area. Employment opportunities in the Amman valley will be reduced by about 800 jobs. That is a bleak prospect for the Amman valley. It will affect a number of constituencies located in the area.
When I hear the Secretary of State talk about the valleys initiative, and when I look at the Amman valley, I wonder what he means. Does he mean that we will be included in it? At present, there is precious little activity by the WDA in the valleys when it comes to providing employment.
It is all very well making advances in prestigious industrial parks. Given the magnitude of today's announced redundancies, the WDA needs to give much more attention to the valleys than it has done in the past.
I want more money to be spent, and spent more speedily. I want jobs for those men whose jobs will disappear once these closures take place. That will be the test of the Secretary of State. Let him or the Minister say how they propose to respond to that test, which is very much on his doorstep as a result of today's announcement.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to ask four questions about the WDA: how much; how; when; and why?
The "how much" question relates to the WDA's response to the 1,500 jobs that will be lost in the closures announced today by British Coal.
I had a Kafkaesque experience this morning in the Energy Select Committee. We were examining Sir Robert Haslam on British Coal's accounts. I put the rumour to him that the Lady Windsor colliery and one other were to be closed. He did not respond. A telephone call led me to be able to put the fact, in a much firmer fashion, that the announcement had been made 25 minutes before. He said that it was a decision to be made by the area management of British Coal and that it was not a matter for him. One found the discussion moving into the realms of complete unreality. The chairman of British Coal did not appear to think that it was worth briefing himself on the loss of 1,500 jobs in an area of high unemployment like south Wales before he met the Committee to discuss the industrial relations and social aspects of British Coal's operations.
The task of providing alternative jobs cannot be left to British Coal. This morning, when we put to Sir Robert what the British Coal Enterprise initiative could do about the 1,500 jobs that would be lost in one fell swoop, he mentioned a new workshop complex at Tondu, at which one man was showing great initiative in breeding pythons. I have heard of pit ponies but not of pit pythons. I wonder how many vacancies will be provided for the pythons that formerly worked for British Coal. It cannot possibly meet the requirements that will be laid on the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and British Coal Enterprise


in facing up to job losses of such magnitude, coming on top of all the other problems, including the underlying lack of diversity in south Wales.
12.15 am
The "when" question concerns our demand to know when the factories which are specified in the glossy brochure, which was published last week by the WDA and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred, will be completed. The advance factory programme appears to be for 1.5 million sq ft. Will it be completed over the next two financial years, or sooner? If it will be carried out over the 1988–89 and 1989–90 financial years, the programme may be just below the average of the last decade. Will there be a further programme next year which will cause the figure to be above or below average? As I pointed out in last week's debate, the average was 746,000 sq ft per annum. It looks as though it will be just below that, at 740,000 sq ft, if the work is completed within the next two years. I should be glad to hear the Minister's views.
As to the "why" question, why is the WDA advance factory programme 22 per cent. behind schedule this year? To give us complete confidence that the WDA is doing its job properly and is not being hog tied by the Welsh Office and the Treasury, we need an explanation.

Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Gentleman is harping on the point that he raised last week. Does he accept that, in talking about the factory-building programme in Wales, one talks about not only the advance factory programme but the bespoke tailor-made factory units, in which the WDA has had singular success? The hon. Gentleman is selecting the advance factory programme out of the total factory programme.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has picked on a fault of mine. The problem with bespoke factories is that they need to be bespoken. Advance factories represent a commitment by the Government to build. Bespoke factories, in so far as they appear in a budget figure at all, are either a guess or a maximum. Advance factories are a minimum — a commitment by the Government. When a figure on bespoke factories is announced, that cannot be the same as a commitment. If the factories are not bespoke, they are not built, and there is no budgetary figure. Last week, the Minister did not explain whether the figure he gave on bespoke factories was a guess or whether the Treasury was imposing on the WDA a maximum beyond which it was not allowed to go.
The Government, the WDA or the Treasury and its controls have allowed the WDA to fall 22 per cent. behind the programme announced last year. We need to know why the WDA is 22 per cent. behind in completions under this year's capital programme. As the WDA accepts, this year the demand is high. If the WDA is 22 per cent. behind, it will miss 22 per cent. of its opportunities.
On the "how" question, how does the WDA intend to achieve some of its objectives when the local authorities, on which the WDA is dependent to prepare the land, are hog tied? The WDA has announced in its glossy brochure that it intends to develop a major new complex at Miskin in the M4 corridor. Although Miskin is not part of my constituency, what happens there affects my county. That is a prestige site. It will be done in partnership —according to the WDA's glossy brochure— with South

Glamorgan county council. Unfortunately, the capital programme that the Welsh Office has given the council will not enable it to prepare the land in the first place. If the Welsh Office does not allow the county council the capital programme to develop the land in the first place, the European regional development fund cannot give a 50 per cent. grant towards the costs of the infrastructure. One hand of the Welsh Office does not appear to know what the other is doing. If it hog-ties the capital programme of the county council that is meant to supply the infrastructure, the WDA will never get to the stage at which it can build the factory economically. That is a major problem. I hope that the Minister will deal with it and the other points that I have raised.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The House is conscious that the hour is late, but it is necessary to refer again to two closely inter-related matters that I raised on Second Reading. Those matters were also touched on by my constituent, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), whose constituency contains almost the whole south Cardiff redevelopment area.
The points to which I alluded were the WDA's land holdings in the area of the south Cardiff redevelopment, and the apprehension abroad in Cardiff—among some people—about the use of compulsory purchase orders to pursue the redevelopment of south Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Minister replied by advising me and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to take up specific Cardiff problems with the WDA, as he would advise any other hon. Members who were raising constituency problems.
I want gently to chide my hon. Friend the Minister about that. The south Cardiff redevelopment is no minor constituency matter. It is a most important development. It was the inspiration of my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell. It represents a tremendous prospect for the future — —[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will. I would give way to him, but I fancy that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have a far better knowledge of this matter, which fact the hon. Member for Newport, East is giving away by his sedentary interruptions.
The redevelopment represents a tremendous potential for the future, not only for Cardiff, but—more widely—for the valleys of south Wales and the whole of south Wales. The last thing any of us want to do in Cardiff is to undersell ourselves on the south Cardiff redevelopment or Cardiff's potential.
I do not necessarily expect my hon. Friend to reply tonight. I shall be content if he will reflect on this matter after the debate and further consider the points that I and the hon. Member for Cardiff South, and Penarth tried to make on Second Reading. Perhaps he will go into them on his later visits to the WDA and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The last thing I want is for the Government or the Welsh Office to regard the matter as a local constituency problem.

Mr. Michael: In view of the gentle and polite remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) about south Cardiff, the Minister should take his point on board and respond to it. The point has been made in a reasonable way on both sides of the House, and the Minister should therefore listen to it.
It makes no sense to take up specific problems with the WDA because it is clear that influence has been brought to bear upon it to be involved in the area. That is why a transfer of land is going on at the present time. As I stressed on Second Reading, the whole strategy of the development of south Cardiff needs to be got right and done in partnership.
The Ministers who are involved in decision making must understand the delicate nature of the partnership and the need for them to be involved in it. They must make sure that it works so that jobs are retained and encouraged rather than lost through the process. It is important that the WDA's expertise and knowledge is fully utilised in the process. The problem with last week's announcement, the points that were raised in last week's debate, and the lack of ministerial response is that no reassurance has been given on that point.
I record a note of disagreement with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. Whereas we welcomed the support and personal commitment that Lord Crickhowell gave the Cardiff bay development, the starting point for the scheme was the initiative of the South Glamorgan county council, a Labour authority, against Conservative councillors' opposition when it committed public investment to building the new county headquarters.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North may be aware that the gentleman who represented his party in the last election was photographed in front of a development that he had opposed within the county council.
It is a minor matter. I raise it only because it has been referred to by hon. Members. It is only right that it be put into the right context.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Gentleman and I have similar thoughts on the subject. I should not want to provoke a great quarrel with him, but I invite him to study the St. David's day debate in the Chamber in 1983, when my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell launched what has now become the work of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. His initiative came forward at that time. It had previously gelled from a visit to the docks by my predecessor, the late Michael Roberts, in company with the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Lord Callaghan. It was brought out before the Welsh Select Committee visited Cardiff. The chief executive of South Glamorgan county council laid the credit at the door of my predecessor the late Michael Roberts, Lord Callaghan and Lord Crickhowell. It was then enthusiastically taken up by all political parties in the two authorities in Cardiff.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I may intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech. That approach can be counterproductive. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman provoked a response. What I said is true. In the first instance, South Glamorgan county council put its money where its mouth was. Despite Conservative councillors' opposition, it went ahead with its development of the new county headquarters and the partnership with private enterprise, to try to get things moving in the docklands. That takes nothing away from the fact that there was then a positive intervention by Lord Crickhowell, as he now is.
In the past, because of the nature of the political makeup of the area, we in Cardiff have managed to maintain cross-party continuity of local authority control from one period to another, as the hon. Gentleman will know. From

time to time, the hon. Gentleman and I have bantered across another chamber. It is important to say where the real start of initiatives began and where the real opposition has lain. I do not wish to be taken any further down that avenue. I intended to explore it only briefly in response to what was said earlier.
There have been no answers regarding the intentions of the Welsh Office and the Ministers concerned. In Cardiff, there is a serious lack of industrial development opportunities because of a lack of land and factories. That was not spelt out in the WDA's announcement last week. There is an inevitable freeze while decisions are made about planning in south Cardiff. Nevertheless, that means that the area is losing opportunities and jobs. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that there will be a speedy response to these points and support for the local authorities as they try to tackle those elements in the area.

Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) should not be quite so surprised that the Conservative party is trying to lay claim to the credit for the Cardiff bay scheme, because in this debate Conservative Members are trying to claim credit for the existence and success of the Welsh Development Agency. This is a standard tactic. They oppose an idea when it comes forward, and then claim the credit once it gets off the ground.
I am delighted to see the Minister of State. It gives me great pleasure that he is to reply to the debate. We all like and have a great affection for him. We particularly like his well-known characteristic that he would not dream of leaving the Chamber until he has answered every point that has been put to him tonight. We know that that is the standard that he has set himself, and that is the standard by which we will judge him this evening. To that end, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has started a checklist of the various questions to the Minister. Indeed, it might facilitate matters if we organised a photocopy of the list for the Dispatch Box so that the Minister could have the list.
We welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber in the unexplained absence of the Secretary of State. Where is he? He should be here. After all, his Welsh valleys initiative is buried somewhere in the Bill and we would expect the Secretary of State, of all people, to be here to tell us about it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been to Brussels today and was returning this evening. While in Brussels, he was working very much in the interests of Wales.

Mr. Williams: In that case, as the Secretary of State knew that he was going to Brussels, and if he was so enthusiastic to be here, I am surprised that the man who we are told has such massive influence in Cabinet was unable to persuade the business managers to hold the debate tomorrow evening or yesterday evening instead of this evening. It is an astonishing discourtesy to Wales that on one of the few occasions when we have an opportunity to deal in Committee with specifically Welsh legislation the Secretary of State feels that he is too grand to be here. Perhaps he is out preparing yet another press release on the valleys initiative. He will not tell us about that, but no doubt there will be a press release.
My hon. Friend the Member for—[Interruption.] Sir Paul, you are fortunate this evening to be sharing an experience that we thought was normally unique to Welsh Members. I invite you to watch the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) carefully during the debate. You will see that he has a rather unusual characteristic. His jaw is well worth watching. It is the nearest thing to political perpetual motion that you will ever come across. I invite you to observe his conduct during the debate.

Mr. Raffan: Perhaps I should hold up a sign reading "Laughter".

Mr. Williams: There you are, Sir Paul. It is fascinating. We should record the hon. Gentleman's peculiar antics. Perhaps he will say something as well as emitting noises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney hit on a very important point. He said that there is an initiative that may be of some importance. We do not know. However, if it is important and valuable, we welcome it. At least we are entitled to know about it.
The initiative relates to the use of private funds for property projects backed up as necessary where it may facilitate viability, as the press release says, with funds from the private sector.
There are important principles here as well as important points of detail and we are entitled to know about them. For example, if the WDA is to determine that its commitment of funds is appropriate to achieve viability, will it, as it is attaining that viability, get a share of whatever profits are made? Because viability is involved, will it be expected to go before the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board for approval?
In this context I agree with my hon. Friend's puzzlement about priority areas. I would not exclude any of them, particularly as one is in my constituency, so my hon. Friend will recognise that I speak not entirely impartially. If the valleys initiative is buried somewhere among the proposals for the Welsh Development Agency, why are the valleys excluded from the bold new initiative? One would have thought that they would be the very areas to be included.
We would also like further information on the new consultancy scheme which the WDA and the Welsh Office will be pushing in Wales. This is put forward by the Secretary of State as an important addition to his regional weaponry or his arsenal of inducements for the regions. Yet no doubt he will have seen that the regional director of the Department of Trade and Industry for the south of England, the most prosperous area of Britain, has said that that area, with 30 per cent. of the population, expects to get 40 per cent. of the money available under the new scheme.
So, far from being a regional policy, it seems to be a counter-regional policy. The area of greatest innovation will apparently get the greatest benefit. Therefore, with a relatively low level of innovation, we may lose out. We want clarification on that. It is difficult to quantify in advance projects which are dependent on demand. However, the director for the south of England put figures on it, so no doubt the Minister of State will feel able to do the same.
Derelict land clearance has been raised. The moment one points out something that is even slightly critical of the performance of the Government the Secretary of State bounces up and down in a paddy and starts muttering;

occasionally he bounces to the Dispatch Box with irrelevancies. I asked specifically about this on Second Reading. The Minister of State did not answer when he replied to the debate, no doubt because he did not have time. Knowing what a courteous man he is, I am sure he intends to give me the answer tonight.
I made the point that, whereas England has two and a half times the area of derelict land that we have in Wales, about five times as much is being spent on clearing the dereliction. When does the Minister think that the programme of dereliction clearance will end? It has been pointed out that the WDA hopes to achieve the clearance of all derelict land by the turn of the century. I said on Second Reading that the programme for this year is good. Even on that performance, the agency will not achieve clearance until the year 2020. If the WDA's claim that the clearance will be complete by the end of the century is to be fulfilled, this year's programme will have to be more than doubled. Is that end of the century target an official Government target or something that the chairman of the WDA produced off the top of his head?
Does the Minister recognise that this much boosted extra money for the WDA, which the press has blazoned, is coming from other parts of the Welsh budget and the Welsh regional assistance budget? All that is happening is that the same money is being moved around.
The inadequacy of it all was shown up by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) when he commented on the 1,600 jobs that we have lost today. We are told how wonderfully Wales is doing, but in one day we have had three announcements—the proposed loss of the Lady Windsor pit, the proposed loss of the Abernant pit, and the proposed loss of a Wernos washery. That means that 1,600 jobs will go.
The astonishing thing about the announcement concerns Abernant, which produces anthracite. The Welsh director of British Coal went on Welsh television just before Christmas to boast of the turnaround there which had reached the point at which it was making a profit on every tonne of coal produced in November. Today, however, he announces its closure.
As for Lady Windsor, believe it or not, as a result of some investment, which is due to be completed in five week's time, and which could double output, it has the second highest productivity of any Welsh pit on one of its faces because of the changes that are in hand. As it is working ahead, as required by the rescue programme decided by British Coal with the NUM in November, British Coal rats on the agreement.
As for Wernos, the announcement has come as a surprise to everyone. I understand that Abernant is to be used instead.
These announcements delay the activities of the WDA. What is now to happen? Is the matter to go through the review procedure? The NUM is in great difficulty because, under the existing scheme, there is a £5,000 premium on redundancy payments until 31 March. If the union initiates the review procedure, it will go on beyond 31 March and therefore its members stand to lose the extra £5,000. If it does not initiate the review procedure, however, the Government will accuse it of agreeing to the closures.
Either way, we want to know what the WDA intends to do and what programme the Secretary of State will bring forward to help those three areas. We do not expect the extra demand to be met out of the extra budget for the


WDA or the Welsh Office. We want there to be new money to meet these requirements. We have lost 11 pits and 11,000 jobs in the coal industry during the past four years.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Secretary of State has been in Brussels all day working for the interest of Wales.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be careful. It was his Secretary of State who, as Secretary of State for Energy, drove the knife into the heart of the Welsh mining communities and now, as Secretary of State for Wales, he is taking away regional development grants, thus turning off the life support scheme which was intended to help them recover from the blows that he delivered. It strikes us as somewhat paradoxical that we have lost all these jobs in the mining areas, over the past four years, and they should be the supreme example of where regional aid should work, but in the same four years their special development area status has been taken away. Now the regional development grants are being taken away.
12.45 am
We welcomed the announcement on the WDA factory programme last week, as I am sure the Minister will recollect. It has said that it is taking an extra 1·5 million sq ft of factory space next year. The WDA talks about the creation of 4,500 jobs over the next few years. That means that, for every 1,000 sq ft of factory space, we get three jobs. To put the announcement of the next year's programme into perspective, we should remember that the three closures today would require more than 500,000 sq ft of new factory space to provide alternative jobs. So, while 1·5 million sq ft sounds a lot, when one sees it against the problems with which we are trying to deal, one begins to realise how small and inadequate it is.
Table 2·2 of the public expenditure White Paper lists the spending programmes Department by Department. We have all seen in the Welsh press, particularly the Western Mail, editorials about the miracle man from Worcester who is producing all this extra money for Wales. Unfortunately, he has not told the Treasury about this, and it does not know that it is giving extra, so it has done him a disservice and written it up wrongly in the White Paper. He has got it right and it has got it wrong.
Table 2·2 shows that, far from there being an increase next year, expenditure for Wales goes down by £6 million. I gave that figure in a press release some weeks ago, but was castigated by the Secretary of State for doing so. The following year, the great achievement of the wonder worker from Worcester is that we shall lose £24 million. To show that it was not a mistake the first time round, according to the White Paper, in the third year of the projected period, we shall lose another £24 million. The Secretary of State and the Western Mail are telling us that we are getting this extra money, but no one has told the Treasury, and it thinks that we shall lose £54 million in the next few years. Much as I like the right hon. Member for Worcester, I am inclined to take more notice of what is said in the White Paper than of what is said in his press releases.
Let us follow the logic of this. If next year we shall lose £6 million from our budget, but this extra funding will go to the WDA and we will get the Welsh valleys initiative somewhere in this slimmed-down budget, where is the

money to come from? Which Welsh pocket is being picked to provide the funding that the Secretary of State is talking about?
I am delighted that we have an answer from the Welsh Office confirming that the valleys initiative is within these published figures. The valleys need many things. They need improvements in housing, but the housing programme is cut in the second volume of the White Paper. They need improved transport links, but spending on those, too, is massively cut.
Wales needs more spending on education. A Welsh Office press notice talks about a wonderful expansion in the education budget for Wales over the next three years —0·5 per cent. a year. Where is the initiative? We want to know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said. It does not seem to be in housing, transport, or education. So how many of these factories—how much square footage, how many jobs and at what cost—are part of the new valleys initiative, so coyly introduced by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Morgan: Sounds like a python.

Mr. Williams: I shall leave my hon. Friend to grapple with his python.
The Secretary of State is not a man to hide his initiatives under bushels, yet we have had to winkle out from him the fact that the initiative has already taken place. He has devised a new parliamentary game, hunt the initiative, and my hon. Friends are trying to do just that. Will he tell us where it is, how much it is and where the money has come from? Which part of Wales is having to pay for the so-called initiative?
Let me remind the Minister of the background to the debate, in case he gets carried away with the hyperbole used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. In December last year, unemployment was still double what it was in December 1979. The WDA budget, which the Government are boasting about, has been £40 million, or 60 per cent., more in the past. That is how good it is now. The factory building programme that the Government are telling us about has been I million sq ft larger in the past, yet we are told, "You are lucky. Look at these marvellous achievements under this brand new Secretary of State for Wales." Just to make sure that we do not feel that there is anything to which the Government's malevolent attentions have not been turned, regional grants have been 50 per cent. higher in the past.
That is the background: less money, less factory space, less WDA funding and double the unemployment. Will the Minister please convince us now, detail by detail, and tell us what the initiative is, where the extra money is and, above all, where that money is coming from?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is high time that we reminded ourselves that the clause simply authorises an increase in the limit to the amount of money that can be made available to the WDA by Parliament out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund and that we are increasing the limit from £450 million to £700 million because of the enormous success of the WDA. We covered most of the activities of the agency in the three-hour Second Reading debate last Thursday. We referred to the record factory letting this year–2·3 million sq ft—and to the WDA's intention of completing 1·5 million sq ft next year. We also stressed that the WDA's potential spending is up to £113 million next year–31 per cent. more than


the budget for this year. We expect the WDA's success to continue. We expect it to continue to succeed in attracting new industry, in building and letting factories and therby bringing much-needed employment to Wales.
Expenditure by the agency depends on several factors, some of which are outside its control, such as the needs of Welsh industry for investment finance; the availability of land for environmental projects; the speed with which the agency can devise plans and implement schemes; and the ability of the agency and Wales as a whole to continue to attract inward investment.—[Interruption.] Several hon. Members have referred to the serious situation with regard to pit closures, so I should have thought that they would be prepared to listen with some attention to what I have to say.

Mr. Roy Hughes: What about the 1,500 jobs?

Mr. Roberts: I expect the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure takes this matter seriously, as I do, to listen to what I have to say.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I—indeed, all Conservative Members—were naturally sorry to hear of the pit closures that were announced earlier today. However, maintaining uneconomic operations is simply not the answer to the long-term future of the south Wales coalfield, as, indeed, the Opposition discovered when they were in government and had to close pits.
British Coal has acknowledged its responsibility to mining communities by the setting up of British Coal Enterprise, which has — to date — offered £10 million assistance to small business projects in Wales. That is a valuable offer. The schemes involved are expected to create or safeguard about 6,500 jobs.
Of course, the WDA will also have an important part to play in encouraging the economic redevelopment of the communities involved. The programme of factory building announced last Thursday will provide many job opportunities throughout the south Wales coalfield.
I have been looking at the specific programmes of the WDA in the heads of valley regions, in the Treforest region and in Swansea, all of which will at least be helpful in the present situation.
The WDA is also discussing with British Coal the prospects of developing managed workshops in the valleys. Account will clearly now be taken of the latest closure announcements when deciding on particular sites.
Colliery land is often a major asset and provides an opportunity for future development. The agency will, therefore, have urgent discussions with the local authorities involved to explore whether the sites can be brought within the scope of the new land reclamation programme that the WDA plans to launch in March or early April.

Sir Raymond Gower: In connection with the valleys problem, if it is possible to have another enterprise zone in Wales in the future, could the claims of the valleys area be considered? Would it not be a great advantage if an enterprise zone were to be set up at some crucial central point in the valleys area?

Mr. Roberts: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am coming to the main theme to which he referred.

Mr. Coleman: rose—

Mr. Roberts: Perhaps I could continue by giving the House our immediate responses on the day of the announcement of the closures.
The long-term prosperity of the valleys can be secured only through a complete restructuring of its economy and a major enhancement of the environment.

Mr. Coleman: Will the Minister tell me and the House when he first knew that Abernant would be closed? I have listened carefully to what he has said. Last week he talked about announcements of factories. Did he know then?

Mr. Roberts: I was referring to what the WDA announced last week — [HON. MEMBERS: "Did the hon. Gentleman know?"] The information sheets that I have in my hand were part of the package given to hon. Members by the WDA. Of course, I did not know in advance about the closures; neither did the WDA. Such knowledge could not be inferred from the references that I have made to the activities of the WDA in the various parts of the south Wales region.
1 am
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is addressing the precise issues to which I have just referred in the coming weeks before he makes his announcement on his strategy for the transformation of the valleys. Labour Members have already pressed me hard this evening to give further details on the so-called valleys initiative, but, however hard they press me, they know that it would be totally inappropriate for me to make an announcement at this stage.

Mr. Alan Williams: Why?

Mr. Roberts: Because we are still awaiting the valleys initiative. Indeed, Opposition Members have been contributing ideas — the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) knows that—and we are bringing that information together. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement in due course. We want that initiative to be as good as it possibly can be.
We must remember that my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Crickhowell, began a valleys initiative in 1986. I am sure that Opposition Members would want us to pursue that initiative and take further action. However, it is not for me to make an announcement tonight.

Mr. Rowlands: I still have my checklist and I have not ticked anything off yet. Will the Minister confirm whether the valleys initiative includes the possibility of additional factory space over and above that announced by the WDA on 28 January? The Minister should say yea or nay.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must await my right hon. Friend's announcement, which I promise will be made in due course. As the hon. Gentleman has been in government, he must appreciate that.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked me a great many questions. He asked me to put figures on various items, but I am extremely hesitant about doing so. I will look carefully at the questions as he put them to me and give him such figures as I can. However, he knows as well as I do that answers to some of his questions involve rather more than simple arithmetic, and I certainly do not intend to indulge in even simple arithmetic at this early hour of the morning.

Mr. Alan Williams: Not just one figure?

Mr. Roberts: No. I will give some figures later, but they will not have involved any calculations on my part.
The hon. Gentleman's theme was the interaction between the WDA and the private sector. There is no conflict between the two. The agency is there further to develop a prosperous self-sustaining market economy, and all its policies are geared to that end. The emphasis is increasingly on the agency as a facilitator or encourager of private-sector action, but there is much more emphasis now on partnership with the private sector and with local government.
Direct agency provision is focused on the market gaps, and naturally it will withdraw from areas when private-sector interest has been demonstrated. The property development grant is an example of the effort to stimulate private-sector solutions. It is a new grant to encourage private-sector developers to become more heavily involved in promoting industrial property in Wales. Similarly, the enterprise initiative consists of new business development grants which are administered in Wales by the WDA. The aim is to increase the flow and access to a wide range of top quality, private-sector consultancy advice. Obviously, the WDA is alert to other opportunities to stimulate greater private-sector involvement in the development of the Welsh economy.
One can say a great deal about the investment department and its workings within the WDA, but I do not think that I would be pleasing the House if I pursued the detail of that policy.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is moving on to deal, or not deal, with another point, as may be, but he has not said anything about the new property development grant. Will it be a certain percentage of a total project? What are the criteria? Who will make the assessments and judgments? Will it be the subject of an industrial development agency-type arrangement? It is an important initiative and we should like to know much more about the nature and character of this new grant facility. What about geographical limitation?

Mr. Roberts: I can certainly clear up the point about geographical location. There is no such thing as a geographical limitation within Wales for this grant. It is extremely difficult to do anything other than estimate, or probably guesstimate, the expenditure at this stage.

Mr. Rowlands: Give the figures.

Mr. Roberts: No. I refuse to give the figures because this is a new development and must be tested. We must see exactly what the demand for this particular service will be.
The investment policy department in the WDA seeks to ensure that viable companies have access to adequate financial backing, so as to promote economic growth and create jobs. That department complements the agency's main developmental objectives. Its policy is that it invests only when private-sector sources of venture capital cannot be attracted. It invests on a commercial basis in the expectation of a return, albeit a lower return than most private investors would be prepared to accept.
The agency's main market is seed capital and start-ups. Start-ups alone now account for over half of all new investments. In the current financial year, all agency investment in excess of £250,000 will be syndicated with private-sector partners. That is part of the new mechanism. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and

Rhymney will know that a policy review was conducted with the Welsh Development Agency and the agency is now investigating whether more can be done to lessen the obstacles to private funding, particularly at the smaller end of the market.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred briefly to the scale of land reclamation in England. The Department of the Environment has provided grants worth about £440 million to clear almost 11,000 hectares of damaged land. We are also proud of our record in Wales. Successive Governments have taken pride in their achievements.
The agency's contribution to the regeneration of the Welsh economy and the transformation of the environment has been enormous. That is recognised on both sides of the House. Opposition Members claim credit for the agency, but I must remind them that we changed the character of the agency, through the Industry Act 1979, when we came into office.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has so far answered half of one point. Let me try him on another which should be easier. Will he cover the point about the relationship between the urban renewal unit and the WDA as a lending agency?

Mr. Roberts: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the close co-operation between the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office and between local authorities and other agencies. Urban development grant is very much within the control of the Welsh Office, but that does not prevent us from using it to further developments in which the WDA has an interest. I am sure that will continue. We deal with each and every project as it arises.
It is worth emphasising that since 1979 the Government have enabled the agency to invest about £850 million, at today's prices, in the redevelopment process. The output in terms of new jobs, capital projects and reclaimed land was described in detail in last week's debate. Opposition Members will not want to hear all that good work and all those great achievements described again.
We are the first to accept that the task is nowhere near complete. The Government plan to allow the agency to invest a further £345 million over the next three years—over £100 per head for every person in Wales. That is the measure of the Government's commitment to seeing the task through and of their commitment to Wales.
In order to pursue its very wide range of activities and to complement the Government's economic and regional policies, it is necessary to provide a statutory basis for the continued funding of the agency. That is the purpose of the clause and the Bill. Once again, I commend the clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Coleman: Clause 2 says:
This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.


Why is Northern Ireland being specifically excluded? What about Scotland and England — perhaps even Worcester? Will the Minister explain why Northern Ireland is being discriminated against in this fashion? It is important that the people of Northern Ireland should know that the people of Wales are not prepared to allow them to be discriminated against.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I do not want to have to remind Opposition Members that the report of the Committee stage will be read in Wales. If it is thought that attempts are being made to block or hinder the passage of the Bill, the people of Wales are entitled to take note of that fact.

Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for the protection of the Chair against the Minister. I am asking a perfectly valid question. I am asking for information. I am not being facetious. Therefore, I call on the Minister to withdraw.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that it would be better if the Minister were to be allowed to reply.

Mr. Roberts: I made that comment because a clause excluding Northern Ireland from a Bill's provisions is—as the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) must surely know, because he has been a Member of this House for much longer than I—frequently to be found in Bills that refer to England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

International Development Association

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft International Development Association (Eighth Replenishment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to authorise a contribution of £524,160,000 to the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association. This is a major element of our aid programme — our second biggest single commitment, after our contribution to the European Development Fund.
As the House will know, the association is the soft loan affiliate of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development—more popularly known as the World Bank. It was set up in 1960, when it became clear that many countries were too poor to take on conventional World Bank loans on quasi-commercial terms. Because its terms are highly concessional, the IDA is mainly funded by donors' contributions and not, as with the World Bank, by borrowing on the financial markets.
IDA approved credits of $3·5 billion in the year to June 1987. In the same period, the World Bank approved loans totalling $14–2 billion.
The IDA aims to promote economic progress in the poorer developing countries by providing financial and technical assistance, mainly for specific projects. Just as the Bank's goal is to bring its borrowers to a point where they are fully able to turn to the world's financial markets to meet their needs, so IDA aims to bring its borrowers to the point where, one day, their needs can be met by the Bank.
Many countries have benefited in this way over the years. The most notable case is, perhaps, Korea, which graduated out of IDA in 1973, and whose economy has gone from strength to strength. But most of the poorest countries of Africa and Asia, which are IDA's customers, will continue to need substantial and highly concessional aid flows for many years to come. IDA, therefore, has a key role to play in their development.
Our efforts, through IDA and other international development agencies, complement our aid programmes, to which we attach particular importance. We maintain a substantial and effective bilateral aid programme, the quality of which was recognised by the OECD at its last review of British aid. It is focused primarily on the poorest, IDA-eligible, countries; more so than OECD bilateral aid generally.
Although IDA credits are mostly for projects, in recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on non-project lending, mainly structural and sectoral adjustment loans. Lending of this kind provides vital foreign exchange to help finance essential imports for those countries that are making an effort to get their economic house in order. Structural adjustment programmes usually follow a period of economic decline, which inevitably brings increasing hardship. There is understandable concern, which I share, about the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in those circumstances.
In the long run, everyone should gain from the resumed economic growth made possible by successful adjustment. In the short run, there are some gainers too. For example, policy reforms such as higher agricultural prices will


benefit many poor farmers. But there are other groups who will lose, particularly townspeople who have previously received Government subsidies in one form or another.
The World Bank and other donors, including Britain, have become increasingly aware of the human cost of economic decline in poor countries, and are trying to find ways to give a human face to the adjustment process by targeting aid on the needs of the poor.
The ODA took part last year in an initiative launched by the Government of Ghana, with assistance from the World Bank and the United Nations agencies, to consider what may be done to help poor and vulnerable groups in that country during the period of adjustment. The Government of Ghana have produced a programme which will be discussed later this month at a donors' conference, at which Britain will be represented.
The bank, the UN development programme and the African Development bank are together paying for a five-year project which aims to assess the impact of structural adjustment and to design poverty-alleviation programmes, which will increase the access of the poor to employment and to income generation. This project, which many of the United Nations agencies will supervise, is to be executed by the World Bank. But developing country governments must face up to some difficult political changes, so that their own resources are deployed where the benefits to poor people will be greatest.
It may help if I give the House some of the background to this new obligation to IDA, which we have accepted, and which I now ask the House to endorse. Negotiations for the eight replenishment were tough and lengthy, but there was a sense of urgency and even generosity about them, by contrast with those of the seventh replenishment, which began a year late and yielded a negotiated total of only $9 billion –25 per cent. down, in cash terms, on the sixth replenishment. As it was soon recognised as inadequate, especially to meet the needs of the poorer countries in Africa, the seventh replenishment was supplemented by a special facility for Africa. That brought the total up to $10·6 billion. Britain played its part in providing a contribution of £75 million to the special facility.
For the eighth replenishment, donors have agreed a negotiated total of $11·5 billion. We shall contribute our 6·7 per cent. share to that—the same percentage as last time. In addition, however, some donor countries are making voluntary extra contributions. These total $900 million, including a special pledge of $15 million from the United Kingdom. The overall amount raised by donors is $12·4 billion.
When account is also taken of repayments of earlier loans, IDA should be able to sustain a lending programme of more than $13 billion over the three years of the replenishment. Some 70 per cent. of contributions are payable in non-dollar currencies, in amounts fixed at 1986 rates of exchange. Thus, IDA is substantially protected from the effects of the depreciation of the dollar since 1986. At today's rates of exchange, the replenishment is worth considerably more than $12·4 billion. Early in the negotiations a target range of $10·5 billion to $12–5 billion was established, and the result is at the top of the range.
Many contributors to IDA are above all concerned that the amounts that they provide should help to deal with the

special problems of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa. It has been agreed that at least 45 per cent. of eighth replenishment lending should go to Africa, and that an additional 5 per cent. would be available if necessary to meet the needs of countries making structural adjustment efforts. That compares with only 44 per cent. of the combined seventh replenishment and special facility. Up to $3–5 billion will be allotted to fast-spending adjustment aid. The bulk of IDA's lending will still be for longer-term development projects, however, and we are particularly satisfied that, in addition to Africa, the needs of the large developing countries in Asia have been recognised.
Countries south of the Sahara are facing exceptional difficulties. I am glad to say that there is widespread recognition by African Governments of the need for determined measures to lay the foundations for economic recovery. The World Bank has taken the lead in providing balance of payments assistance for countries prepared to adopt the necessary policy reforms. We strongly support these structural adjustment programmes and we have provided funds from our bilateral aid programme to supplement IDA resources in such cases.
Like the bank, Britain is at the forefront of efforts to increase resources available to support economic reform in the low-income, debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. At a very successful meeting in Paris in December, bilateral donors pledged a total of $6·3 billion of aid as part of the bank-led effort to ensure well coordinated support for these reform programmes. For our part, we have said that we would expect to make available up to £250 million of British bilateral programme aid over the next three years.
Agreement has been reached in the IMF for a substantial increase in the fund's structural adjustment facility, which will increase it almost threefold. Through additions to the aid programme, Britain is contributing sufficient to subsidise interest on £750 million worth of new structural adjustment facility lending, at current interest rates. This offer was warmly welcomed by M. Camdessus, the IMF managing director.
Additionally, as the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made far-reaching proposals to ease the burden of debt on poorer countries in Africa undertaking economic adjustment, the cost of which would be additional to the existing planned aid budget. There is also general agreement on the need for an early and substantial increase in the World Bank's capital, to enable its lending programme to expand, as we all would wish, over the next five or six years. Discussions are proceeding on these matters, and I am sure the House joins me in hoping that they will be concluded successfully.
The order will give the Secretary of State authority to make a United Kingdom contribution of £524·16 million. We shall pay this to IDA by depositing three promissory notes, for equal amounts, over three years from 1988. These will then be encashed over a longer period, to match spending incurred by IDA as a result of its commitments during the replenishment period. The costs of encashment will be met as they occur, from sums voted for overseas aid. The detailed arrangements of the workings of this replenishment are clearly set out in the reports of the bank's executive directors which, together with the IDA resolutions dated 24 February 1987, have been published as a White Paper with which I am sure the House is familiar—Cmnd. 251.
There is, perhaps, one point which I should draw to the attention of the House, on which I am bound to say that we did not achieve quite the result that we should have liked. The terms of IDA-8 credits will be slightly less concessional than those under the previous replenishment. With a grant element of 77 per cent. for the poorest countries and 74 per cent. for others, however, they will nevertheless be more generous than the 72 per cent. grant element which was provided for the first IDA credits in 1961.
We argued that the softer IDA-7 terms should be retained, but eventually conceded some shortening of maturities to secure agreement on the highest possible replenishment total. When maturities are shortened and credits are repaid more quickly, that does of course have the incidental benefit of making more money available for new commitments in the short run. It is also true that for the poorest countries the new IDA lending terms parallel those already in use in the Asian Development Fund.
We are glad to support IDA's central aim of alleviating poverty, and its concentration of resources in key areas, especially in agriculture, rural development and energy. We welcome its action to tackle the problems of the poorest, and particularly the poorer indebted countries in Africa. We support its attempts to help those countries improve the co-ordination of aid from all sources. We play a vigorous part in such co-ordination.
The IBRD and IDA are the world's leading development institutions. They constitute the cutting edge for change and for improvement in the social and economic conditions in developing countries. Successive British Governments have supported them, and our commitment now is as firm as ever. I commend the order to the House.

Miss Joan Lestor: We welcome the order for the eighth replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association. As the Minister has said, the IDA is the most important multilateral aid agency that provides funds to the poorest countries. It plays a crucial role in development, providing concessional funds to countries that are almost wholly dependent on public, rather than private, flows of finance.
Today's Financial Times carries a report on the latest aid survey conducted by the OECD. It provides ample evidence to illustrate the crucial importance of the IDA, and paints a gloomy picture of the outlook for aid from the industrialised countries. The volume of overseas aid is growing at a mere 1·5 per cent. in real terms. That is even less than the OECD's projected trend of 2 per cent. a year. The aid performance of industrialised countries is clearly inadequate, and more funds, bilateral and multilateral, are urgently needed.
More official aid is needed because the private sector is no longer funding development on the scale achieved in the 1970s. The OECD report, published yesterday, shows that since 1980 the share of private flows to the Third world has dropped from 51 per cent. to 32 per cent., whereas the share of total official development assistance has almost doubled from 36 per cent. to 65 per cent. What an extraordinary verdict that is on the monetarist 1980s. All that spirit of enterprise unlocked, all those unfettered free markets and the end result is that the Third world is more dependent today on public-sector finance than ever before.
For these reasons, the IDA is becoming more, not less, important; and that is why we welcome the replenishment order. The sum agreed over the next three years is $12·5 billion. We welcome that amount, but believe it is far too little, given the needs of the poorest countries. The last but one replenishment of IDA — the so-called IDA-6 — in 1979 amounted to $12 billion in cash terms, so, in real terms, today's replenishment is drastically reduced.
So, too, regrettably, is the British Government's contribution. In 1979, the United Kingdom contribution to IDA-6, agreed by the Labour Government, amounted to 10·1 per cent. of the total replenishment. The Tory Government subsequently slashed the size of our contribution to only 6·7 per cent. That dramatic cut in United Kingdom support for the IDA should be reversed as quickly as possible. At the time, Tory Ministers gave the excuse of a weak economy to justify the reduction in Britain's role within the IDA. The Chancellor seems to have billions available today for tax cuts. Is it not time, therefore, to restore United Kingdom status within multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank, by increasing the size of our contributions?
I hope that the Minister can substantially improve on the recent small increase in the aid programme. Increased spending would be welcome in both bilateral and multilateral aid. Our record against the United Nations target is deplorable and likely to get worse as the United Kingdom economy grows faster than the small increase in the aid budget. The Minister should re-commit the Government to the UN aid target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP and establish a timetable of spending increases.
That is why I again refer, as I did on Monday, to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunningharne, North (Mr. Wilson) has introduced a Bill to require a timetable and to concentrate our aid on the poorest countries and the people within them. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the Bill. Given the time constraints, it is unlikely to be given a Second Reading on 12 February, but perhaps the Minister, as I asked him the other day, can persuade the Leader of the House to provide some time in the near future to discuss the matter.
Of course, as the Minister has said, the International Development Association is similarly concerned with the poorest countries. It is mandated to lend to low-income nations, but it is not primarily concerned with the poorest groups within such countries. Opposition Members would like to see a greater emphasis on poverty alleviation in IDA programmes. Projects that are specifically targeted to benefit the poor are often the most challenging. Nevertheless, the World Bank should ensure that it becomes a pioneer agency in project work among the poorest groups.
Many hon. Members will remember that, in 1973, Robert McNamara's famous speech in Nairobi gave the major impetus to the bank's work on poverty alleviation. The rural poor became the focus of much activity and programme funding. The study, "Redistribution with Growth", provided intellectual force to the new policy trend. At the same time, the bank markedly increased its lending for agriculture and rural development.
In the 1980s, however, the bank moved away from that agenda. Under the leadership of the commercial banker, Tom Clausen, the explicit poverty focus was weakened and lending programmes—for example, in rural development —have declined. I believe that that change of direction, no doubt provoked by the monetarist ideologues of the


early 1980s, was a big mistake. Under the new leadership of Mr. Barber Conable, it seems that the bank is rediscovering the wisdom of the McNamara years.
There is ample evidence that the bank's work on poverty alleviation was successful. A recent study by the Washington-based Overseas Development Council shows that poverty-focused projects have
turned out to be what the bank does best".
ODC research proved that the rural poor are amongst the most reliable borrowers; they are more likely to invest wisely and repay promptly than the better-off. The bank's poverty projects also enjoy a better overall performance, with fewer project failures and high rates of return. Such investment in so-called human capital makes humanitarian and economic sense. The ODC concludes that
empirical research sustains the thesis that satisfying basic human needs yields high rates of economic return".
We hope that the next round of IDA spending will see a return of poverty alleviation as the major mandate of the bank and the IDA. We also expect IDA funds to be used creatively to offset the worst impact of the debt crisis on the world's poorest countries. As a key source of credit, IDA has a major role in the process of economic adjustment forced on so many low-income nations, especially, as the Minister has said, in sub-Saharan Africa.
Recently, both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have spoken approvingly of the arguments put forward by the United Nations Children's Fund for adjustment with a human face. UNICEF argues that the inevitable economic changes required, as a result of mounting debt and the impact of world recession, should not cause a deterioration in the living standards of the poorest groups. Human-faced adjustment would guarantee basic needs and ensure that vulnerable groups, especially women and children, are targeted to prevent undue hardship. There can be no disagreement with that.
Since UNICEF's arguments have been accepted, at least at the level of rhetoric, the challenge now is to implement this policy approach. Donors, both bilateral and multilateral, should now ensure that their grants and loans are tailored to the social and economic needs of the poor. IDA funds are being used to support structural adjustment lending, but the bank's existing record in protecting the poor during adjustment is mixed. The bank's own report, published a few years ago, called "Focus on Poverty", admitted that, although the bank
has argued forcefully for the removal of subsidies, it has been less effective in finding positive ways of targeting subsidies to low-income consumers".
The report added that the bank has rarely considered
who will carry the heaviest burden of adjustment.
The bank must now take the lead in promoting adjustment with a human face. That will mean careful analysis in each debtor country of the social side of the economy. Too often, only financial criteria are applied.
Tragically, as we all know, the International Monetary Fund demands stringent adherence to financial targets for public sector budgets. The inflation rate is part of that. Why do we not pay attention to key social indicators of economic well-being, such as infant mortality rates or nutrition levels? They are just as valid measures of economic viability, but they are usually ignored.
Sadly, the adjustment process is more discussed these days than development. The debt crisis has simply arrested

the economic and social progress of the Third world. Hopefully, adjustment with a human face can restore real development. As time passes, IDA will inevitably be at the centre of this debate, but the United Kingdom aid programme also has a role to play. I should be interested to know in what way the Minister is reshaping our country's programmes to ensure that adjustment with a human face will really happen.
An important step to ease the burden of adjustment is the easing of the debt burden itself. In this respect, I think that IDA could take direct action. Unlike the main lending arm of the World Bank, IDA does not borrow on the capital markets or depend on a highly favourable credit rating. The IDA raises all its funds from donor Governments. It could therefore take the initiative to cancel outstanding debts without in any way damaging its ability to make further loans.
IDA now has outstanding credits of about $20 billion. This sum, although small in terms of total debt, will become a significant burden for low-income debtors in th late 1990s. Why not convert these loans into grants and, in the future, offer all IDA funds on grant terms rather than loans?
In 1978, the Labour Government accepted the wisdom of turning former aid loans into grants for United Kingdom bilateral aid to the poorest countries. This policy has featured recently as the true substance of the so-called "Lawson" debt plan. A more imaginative and original idea for the Chancellor to propose would be the effective cancellation of IDA debts. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views on tackling the problem of debt owed to the multilateral agencies.
Finally, most of us would agree that it was very interesting to hear the new president of the World Bank when he addressed the all-party group on overseas development the other week. His speech was refreshing because he addressed many of the points that have been raised today. He recognised the problem of poverty alleviation and of adjustment. In particular, he addressed in a powerful way the eagerness that he has to ensure that the bank adapts its programmes to take account of environmental issues and the role of women in development.
I believe that he is sincere in these ambitions and means to force real change within the bank. We wish him well and hope that the policy initiatives that he is planning in both areas bear fruit. Over the long term, the bank's credibility rests on its ability to tackle poverty and to promote development that embraces all the community — men, women and children. Public support, so crucial for an institution like the World Bank, will depend on the president's ability to translate his words into practice.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on the generous way in which he has treated the International Development Agency replenishment and on the way in which he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have joined together to ensure that the IDA, the World Bank and the international community approach the problems of the most indebted countries in Africa and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has made certain that we in Britain contribute more than our fair share to the IDA replenishment. We have


contributed an additional $15 million over and above our share related to our gross national product. However, the amount is insufficient, as the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has said. The need for the original IDA-7 was estimated by the World Bank at $18 billion. The replenishment was originally as low as $9 billion. But for the special facility for sub-Saharan Africa, our contribution to IDA-7 would have been very low. Fortunately we were able to increase it to approximately $11 billion because the Minister agreed to contribute to the special facility for sub-Saharan Africa.
The replenishment at $12 billion is a great achievement and is to be welcomed, but it is lower than the $18 billion which was originally thought to be necessary for 1DA-7. I estimate that the real need approaches $25 billion, which is almost double the replenishment. However, we must not forget the additional amounts put into IDA directly by the profits made out of the World Bank's operations worldwide. That is a considerable increase in the amount available for investment on IDA terms in the poorest countries.
Distribution is always a thorny subject within the World Bank and we must argue it out in years to come. Traditionally, India and the sub-continent of India together have taken well over 40 per cent. of the IDA distribution. That figure is falling. India has voluntarily given up that large percentage and the figure is falling in favour of sub-Saharan Africa, but it is increased by the necessity to give to China—another low-GNP-per-capita but large country. That poses a major problem for IDA in its distribution profile.
I believe that the GNP per capita criterion is misleading. It discriminates against the most impoverished parts of Africa and also against islands and small territorial states which are not in the same league as China or India, both of which are nuclear powers with enormous armies and navies, and which are very powerful in their own right. The smaller countries and island states can lay claim to a higher per capita income but are much less powerful and have many poor people. So the GNP per capita criterion has to be re-examined closely by the bank. It is doing so, but on an ad hoc basis as it tries to give more to sub-Saharan Africa by common consent.
The IDA replenishment is essential for the poverty-stricken countries of sub-Saharan Africa to enable them to handle their debts. There is no way in which those countries could get out of debt without concessional lending. If people object and say that this is the wrong way to help countries out of their indebtedness, let them cast their minds back to the Marshall plan through which the United States helped Europe and Japan to recover from the second world war. It was on even more concessional terms than are given by IDA. What an enormous help that was to enable Europe and Japan to trade again in the world's trading systems, to provide an increasing standard of living and to rebuild their capital equipment.
The same story is repeated in India, for example. The IDA has many proud graduates from the original score of countries which it helped. India is not yet among them, but, through IDA help, she has begun to be able to be self-sufficient in food.
The IDA is able to lead such enormous successes. They must now be reproduced in the poorest countries in Africa. The IDA must try to ensure that the policies that are adopted, conditional on IDA loans, produce the wealth

creation necessary to increase the standard of living so that those countries can absorb our products. We can help them to build up their national resource.
It is only through IDA and similar lending, and the initiatives such as my hon. Friend the Minister has taken by cancelling loans and making them grants, that we can help countries out of their severe indebtedness.
Many Carribbean countries have recently been graduated out of IDA. I remind the House of what I said about small island states. They are graduated on a gross national product per capita basis when they should be IDA recipients for much longer than the criteria presently permit them to be.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, through the alternate directorships of the World Bank, will help the Bank readjust its distribution policies and reconsider how IDA money is distributed and smaller states are treated.
This is a first-class use of part of our aid budget. It is expensive, but it is one of the most effective ways in which we can assist Third world countries to recover from their serious poverty and indebtedness.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not know why we have our overseas aid debates at 2 am.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): It is not 2 am everywhere in the world.

Mr. Beith: I was about to say that I do not know whether it is a desire to demonstrate that, while it is dark here, it is light in Dhaka. I think that we must be trying to echo the haunting words of the hymn that runs:
The sun that bids us rest is waking
Our brethren 'neath the Western skies.
I can think of no other reason for choosing such perverse times to discuss these matters, which are of major importance.
We strongly welcome the order and the decision by donor countries to step up support for IDA. It is worth drawing attention to the positive role played by Japan, which agreed to a significant increase in its contribution relative to other countries. I hope that it is a sign of an increasing Japanese recognition of the contribution that they, with their tremendous economic power, can make to the good of the world, especially parts of the world closest to them.
We are happy to support IDA as an institution, particularly as the help that it provides is targeted to the poorest countries, especially, as the Minister said, in sub-Saharan Africa. It is worth remembering that the region includes many of the poorest countries and those with the greatest problems of debt relative to gross domestic product. The IDA, as a multilateral agency, provides a means of helping poor countries directly, and encouraging a large number of developed countries to play a full part.
During Monday's debate on the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who I think is on the way to Lochaber tonight, referred to the immense scale of the Third world debt crisis and the fact that interest payments are now so high that they outweigh all cash flows into the developing world, leaving a net outflow of cash from developing to developed countries of about $26 billion a year. In response, the Minister referred to this order as evidence of the fact that


the Government are taking action. That is so, but I am sure that the Minister would be the first to admit that the order does not measure up to the scale of the crisis.
Third world countries are, with increasing regularity, defaulting on loans in the face of desperate circumstances. Zambia is a recent example. There is a growing awareness that the debt crisis is holding back economic growth world-wide by limiting demand for Western produced goods in the developing world. It is not merely a question of compassion: it is about the development of our own economy as well. While I welcome the replenishment, I hope that the Government will press for a much broader and more ambitious initiative from the Group of Seven, aimed at dealing with the debt crisis.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) spoke about debt cancellation, but it is unrealistic to talk about that in relation to the relatively small burden of IDA public sector debt incurred in the Third world. The main debt cancellation problem arises in relation to the private bank debts in which so many countries are involved. The cancellation of many of these IDA loans would not have a material impact on the problem, and might undermine a useful system.
I was concerned that the speech made this week by the Governor of the Bank of England might be taken as a signal of the wrong kind. I do not think that he intended it as such, and if his speech is read in full, it does not have that impact. His argument was that the provision for bad debts of Third world countries in the accounts of British banks was becoming too large, and was perhaps becoming an invitation to default. He went on to argue in favour of imaginative schemes and initiatives to deal with those debt problems and to make it clear that he was not intending to discourage those. I hope that the signal is clearly understood as that, and his speech is not taken to mean that the Governor of the Bank is in the closest possible collusion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and is trying to make more difficult the problems of Third world countries in meeting that debt burden.
One has to remember that the United Kingdom IDA contribution comes out of the limited aid budget, which is still at around only half of the target level set by the United Nations. All the commendation that one delivers for the increased commitment set out in the order has to be tempered by the realisation that we are still far below that level, which many of us believe could be achieved. Against that background, the order looks less exciting and impressive than it might otherwise.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate should be set in the context of the Government's overseas aid record, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said earlier, is not just disappointing but awful. In real terms, in 1978–79, net overseas aid amounted to £1·395 billion, but in 1987–88 it amounted to only £1·198 billion. Even on the Government's plans, by 1991, it will still not have reached, in real terms, what it was in 1978, the last full year of the Labour Government, through what was then the aid to the poorest programme. While one welcomes any money put into the IBRD, it has to be set against that disappointing background.
Paragraph 2·1 of the report about the size of the eighth replenishment says:

Throughout the negotiations, donors emphasized the pivotal role played by IDA as a multilateral institution providing resources to finance basic investment and support economic policy reforms and structural changes in the world's poorest countries. Moreover, donors also underlined the fact that IDA was a highly effective channel for aid and a key instrument of international cooperation and development.
It goes on to talk about the need for anti-poverty programmes in rural areas and the problem that low-income countries have
had to rely on inflows of concessional resources that have been scarce in the mid-1980s.
One can agree with, and understand, all that. However, the difficulty of many of us in dealing with this problem and the way that it is presented is that that report was written not by the recipient countries but by the donor countries. Effectively, they are patting themselves on the back for the work they have done. One has to question the economic models forced on the poorest countries by the policies of the World Bank, and influenced through the IBRD.
The Minister quoted Ghana at some length, and one could quote other countries. I would be the first to say that those countries need the largest possible aid programmes at the lowest possible interest rates. Indeed, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and say that the loans should be written off and made into straight grants, because that is the only way that many of those countries will get out of the poverty trap in which they find themselves. I am worried that, instead of doing that, the World Bank is forcing on those countries an economic model that is doing more than anything else to destroy their economies and environment and the political gain of independence 30 years ago. That is a serious problem.

Mr. Chris Patten: Has the hon. Gentleman ever talked to a Finance Minister from a sub-Saharan African country? That is not what they say.

Mr. Corbyn: I have spoken to Finance Ministers—not in sub-Saharan African countries but in other countries. I have also spoken to economists in many of those countries, and they express similar views about the loss of independence as a result of economic models forced upon them by the World Bank. If the Minister wishes to refute that, it is up to him, but I suggest that he examines the views expressed by a number of development agencies and the voluntary aid agencies and tries to understand some of their concerns.
I am not attempting to be a scaremonger; I am merely making the point that, if the World Bank adopts an arrogant attitude towards the economic problems of Third world countries while doing nothing to solve the problems of commodity prices or private sector loans — merely saying that it is offering a panacea — it is not doing much to help anyone.
There is much evidence of the greater indebtedness that many of the poorer countries are incurring. I shall cite only a couple of examples dealt with in the January issue of South magazine. Presumably the Minister is well read and reads South, in which case I hope that he reads it carefully. Page 10 of the January issue deals with the slump in commodity prices over the past decade and the export earnings of many of the poorest countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. The Minister well knows what that problem is and where it has come from.
Page 84 of the same issue gives a very interesting set of statistics, which the magazine produces month by month,


to show what commodities can buy. It gives the number of barrels of oil that 1 tonne of a given commodity will purchase. In 1975, it required 147 tonnes of coffee, and the figure has increased to 152. The figure for cotton has gone down from 119 to 90; for rubber, from 53 up to 65; and for tea from 129 down to 114. Taken overall, the poorest countries in the poorest parts of the world are getting progressively lower prices for their goods. They are paying higher and higher interest rates on the private sector loan market and are getting deeper and deeper into debt.
I support the IDA in giving soft loans to help rural development, but that does not solve the problem of the private sector loans and the countries' indebtedness. The only way that they can get out of that indebtedness is by selling assets through the encouragement of foreign investment, which creates serious political problems.

Mr. Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the countries that qualify for IDA loans are not those that have incurred, or can afford to incur, debts from private banks?

Mr. Corbyn: Many of them have incurred private sector loans in the past, although there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman's assertion, as it is not the very poorest that have incurred the biggest loans. That is true enough. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is still the problem that the countries cannot borrow that money because they are already too much in debt or because they are given such a low credit rating.
I want to deal with the question of the indebtedness of some of the poorer — although not necessarily the poorest—countries and the problems of the investment strategies adopted by multinational companies. I refer to an interesting and recently published book, "World Debt —Who Is To Pay?" by Jacob Schatan, which analyses the problems of indebtedness especially in Latin American countries. It is interesting to note from it that in 1969 the balance of trade taken as a whole between Latin America and the rest of the world was a plus of $16 million. That figure has progressively worsened to the extent that by 1984 the overall trade deficit was $34 billion.
As a comparison besides that figure, the book produces the figures for payments of profits, interest and other remittances—that is to say, the net outflow of funds from Latin America either through debt repayments, which get worse and worse, or through the repatriation of profits from multinational companies. The outflow of money in that sense is greater than the net balance of payments during that period.
In other words, much of the balance of payments problems that many of the Latin American countries have got themselves into are largely the result of foreign investment in those countries and the investment policies adopted, and pressed on them, by the private sector and the World Bank.
It is important that people in the West should begin to understand that the British, European and north American banks are incredibly overstretched, especially in Latin America, but also in other parts of the world. At the moment they are in the process of writing off large amounts of those debts and if countries in Latin America go on debt default in the way in which Brazil has, as Argentina has threatened to do or as Peru is doing to a limited extent, the consequences will be serious. Those countries are crying out for help, and it could be given by

improving commodity prices and the loan relationship that goes with that. We need to know the Government's attitude to that.
An article in The Times of 26 August gave the figures for the outstanding international loans of the largest Third world borrowers at the end of 1986. The figure for Brazil was $110 billion, for Mexico $102 billion and for Argentina $50 billion. It also gave the figures for the lenders— for example, British banks that had made special provisions this year for outstanding loans. At that time Barclays bank had made a provision of £570 million on loans of £3·1 billion. In other words, it did not expect to get back one sixth of its provision. The figures are similar for the other banks, Lloyds being the most stretched at present, with one quarter of its debt provisionally written off by that decision.
I have raised the next point in the House before because of its seriousness. It relates to the World Bank's attitude to the projects that it funds in the Third world or that it allows to be funded. The president of the World Bank has gone on record as saying that he is concerned about the environmental and social impacts of some of the projects. The Minister showed some recognition of that when he referred to more money being invested and spent in rural areas among the poorest people rather than in urban development schemes.
There has been some—I think greatly insufficient—reporting of the problems of environmental damage in Brazil through World Bank policies. On 27 August 1987, The Listener stated:
in Brazil the World Bank and the government have funded the notorious Polonoroeste project in the state of Rondônia, building a 1,000-mile road through the Amazon region".
It continues by quoting the problems that have occurred as a result of that. The president of the World Bank, Barber Conable, has admitted mistakes on that and met a delegation of Amerindian people late in 1986, who had previously been in this country to drum up support for their good and moving cause.
With support from Friends of the Earth and other people, Survival International last year produced an excellent book entitled "Bound in Misery and Iron", which is a summary of the problems that the Indian community in Brazil has suffered because of the partly World Bank funded iron ore project that has been developed there. I shall quote from it briefly because it summarises well the horrors that that project has meant for many people in Brazil.
It states:
Many thousands of the region's 8 million people once lived and worked on the land that has now been appropriated by the Brazilian Government for the main components of the Programme".
We are talking about a massive programme covering an area the size of Britain and France, the Grande Carajás programme. It includes
the 900 km railway … the so-called Mineral Province of Carajás.
That province has now been set up as a major iron ore, producer. The European iron and steel producers have for a long time been searching for a cheap source of iron ore and they have been prepared to invest in Brazil to get it. They have been pressurised to do so by the World Bank, which is anxious that Brazil should pay off its foreign debt by an export-led boom through the export of ore.
The problems that that development has caused to the people of the region have been horrendous. Many


thousands of people have been removed from their homes, land grabs have occurred all over the place — —[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister finds this so funny—and serious environmental problems have arisen as a result of the project. The area can sustain only a low-density population, but the development has tried to put a high-density population into the area.
As deforestation takes place, serious erosion occurs and therefore desertification is taking place in the Amazon rain forest area, with appalling ecological results locally. The rivers have become polluted because of the industrial development and that has led to the destruction of the livelihood of many people in the region.

Mr. Michael Jack: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the destruction of the tropical rain forests. In fairness, does he agree that the Minister, in answer to a parliamentary question earlier this week, referred to the efforts that have been made by the Government to support international efforts to try to minimise the destruction of those rain forests? I believe that a more generous reaction to the Minister's response to the problem is called for.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has not heard the last of what I intend to say on the subject.
We, as a member of the EEC and the World Bank, are party to the destruction of people's livelihoods and the environmental damage and the inappropriateness of the development that is taking place. Enormous damage has already been done, and many people have already lost their lives. It is not too late to change the nature of the development, to slow it down, and, as a result, slow down the rate of environmental damage.
I know that the Minister has replied to questions by saying that he is concerned about the environmental impact of the development scheme, and I hope that he will take the opportunity tonight to say that the Government are prepared to use their influence in the World Bank to halt the scheme and to try to stop the continuing destruction of the rain forests in that part of Brazil.
My plea is set within a much wider economic context. It is not as though anyone wants to destroy the Amazonian rain forests, but the Brazilian economy has been forced into such a position because that Government believe that the only way out is to proceed with that destruction. The amount of money involved in the Carajits programme is stupendous. In fact, the World Bank investment in it is £304 million, the EEC investment is considerable and the rest of the investment is made up of private capital.
We seldom discuss such matters as these in the House and when we do it is mostly, and unfortunately, at 2 o'clock in the morning. I believe that the problems of the world economy warrant a higher profile in the House. There should be a much greater understanding of the causal relationship between high interest rates, low commodity prices and the continual extraction of wealth from extremely poor countries to aggrandise the economic system of western Europe and north America.
It is not good enough for us to ignore these matters, and it is not good enough for us to pretend that we can solve these problems merely through agencies such as the Inter-American Development Bank. We require a global approach to the problems of the world economy and the need to eliminate poverty in the poorest parts of the world.

Mr. Chris Patten: By leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, as she did the other day, that at some stage we should have a rather longer debate on this issue, perhaps slightly earlier in the day.

Mr. Corbyn: Or later in the day.

Mr. Patten: Or later in the day. I would always be happy to exchange views with the hon. Lady and such of her hon. Friends as arrive for a debate on these matters. I hope that it will be high on the list of priorities when the Opposition choose their Supply day debates in the coming months.
The hon. Lady referred, properly, to poverty targeting in aid programmes. There is often an unreal argument about economic growth and so-called trickle-down, and investment in human resources. As can be seen from developments in south Asia, it is not sensible to polarise the argument about economic growth and investment in human resources. Investment in people, whether through better health or education, helps to promote economic growth, and economic growth helps to provide the resources for investing in health and education services. Sometimes people talk as though the two were entirely separate and could be considered in different compartments.
The hon. Lady referred to the UNICEF proposals—the so-called structural adjustment with a human face agenda. I shall not trouble her with an extremely moving speech I made on the subject to the annual general meeting of UNICEF in London a few months ago.

Miss Lestor: I have read it.

Mr. Patten: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady; I think she must be the only hon. Member who has. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have we".] It is becoming ever more popular, but bearing in mind Christian humility I shall move on.
We have attempted to demonstrate, both in Ghana with what I was saying earlier and by refocussing our health programme on primary health care, our concern about the social impact of structural adjustment programmes, and we shall continue to do so. We sometimes forget that not engaging in these programmes also has a severe social impact.
The hon. Lady suggested that our IDA share should be increased to 10·1 per cent., as in the sixth replenishment. I understand that, when the previous Government accepted the 10·1 per cent. share in the sixth replenishment, they argued that Britain's share should be lower, on the grounds of relative economic strength. Arrangements were therefore made at Britain's special request to draw down our sixth replenishment committed at a disproportionately low level for the first five or six years—in other words, to backload the payments and to reduce the real cost of our burden. Our present 6·7 per cent. share is above our share in terms of donors' relative GNP and closely parallels our share in the donors' part of the IBRD's capital. That is 6·77 per cent.
The hon. Lady asked why we did not apply a retrospective terms adjustment to IDA's loans. The House should recognise that that would not help countries in most need. The beneficiaries would include some of the wealthier countries, such as Korea, which have graduated


out of IDA and the losers would be current recipients who are, by definition, poor because repayments at present go back into the kitty to finance new credits. The immediate effect in any case would be small because repayments are only just beginning to build up.
The hon. Lady paid a wholly justified tribute to the president, Mr. Barber Conable, and his concern for environmental impact and for issues such as women in development. I am sure that when the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gets to know more about this subject, he will share the view of most of the House about Mr. Conable's commitment to environmental issues.
In his interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to the position of smaller islands, particularly in respect of the normal GNP per capita criteria, which can be applied rather crudely. Perhaps I should remind him that it was agreed in 1985 that five small islands — Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Tonga — should continue to be eligible for IDA credits up to the end of IDA-8 in mid-1990 because of their lack of creditworthiness for commercial or IBRD lending. Their creditworthiness and the question of their continued access to IDA will be reviewed before mid-1990.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford also referred to India's share. He will probably recall that India and China together receive just over 30 per cent. of IDA-7 and the African facility combined. They will receive this same share, about 30 per cent. of IDA-8, subject to management flexibility. Both India and China receive large IBRD loans for their development. They receive loans from both IBRD and IDA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the enormously difficult debt burden which a number of the poorest countries have to bear. In Africa and most of the countries which borrow money from IDA, we are talking principally about debts to Governments, Government agencies and export credit agencies, rather than to commercial banks.
It is important for us to continue to work for the implementation of the debt initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. We have made considerable progress on parts of that initiative. We have made progress on writing off aid loans. We have written off about £260 million in aid loans to 14 African countries, and others have followed us. In all, we have written off about £1 billion in aid loans. We have made progress with the rescheduling of debts. Seven African countries have now been rescheduled over more generous periods through the Paris club.
We have not yet made the progress that we should have liked on the key element — a reduction in the interest rates which countries pursuing sensible policies have to pay. Provided that those interest rates remain at present levels, debt burdens will grow year after year for many of those countries. That is why the issue of interest rates is so important and why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pressed it at the spring and autumn meetings of the international financial institutions. That is why Commonwealth Finance Ministers and Heads of Government were right to endorse his efforts at their meetings last autumn.
We shall continue to press for action on interest rates for the most debt-distressed countries which are pursuing

sensible policies. I hope that we shall have as much success with this element of the initiative as we have had with others.
I wish to deal finally with the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North about environmental issues. I hope that he will not regard this as patronising, but to talk, as he did, in a way which confused IBRD and IDA, suggests that he is a little low on the learning curve, although I do not suggest that he is not passionately concerned about environmental issues.

Mr. Corbyn: I do not feel that I am being patronised by the Minister. I am well aware of the difference between the IDA and the other agencies that are associated with the World Bank. I was merely making the point about the environmental concerns emanating from the World Bank, because the Minister conceded that this debate had provided an opportunity to discuss the World Bank and its relationship with the poorest countries of the world.

Mr. Patten: I turn, then, to the environmental issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As a bilateral donor, we have done as much as anybody to build into our evaluation and assessment of projects an awareness of their impact on the environment. I am sure that he is also aware that in the European Community and in international financial institutions, we have led the way in making clear our concern about the impact on the environment. I am delighted that, with Mr. Conable, we are having not a dialogue with the deaf but a dialogue with somebody who is as concerned as we are, and rightly so, about the environment.

Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during Mr. Barber Conable's recent visit to this country, he told the all-party committee on overseas development that Britain has led the way in influencing the World Bank to adopt the very much stronger environmental policies that are now in place?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is easier for him to make it than for me. It is a fair assessment. However, we cannot be even remotely complacent about the progress that has been made. There are some horrific environmental problems that still have to be overcome. I returned recently from the Sudan, where I saw the desert marching forward at the rate of an inexorable 4 metres a year. That reminded me of how much still remains to be done.
We are aware of the importance of environmental issues. I hope that we are demonstrating both in Brussels and Washington and at home that we are conscious of the place that environmental items should have on the agenda.
The hon. Member for Islington, North referred in particular to Polonoroeste. Discussions are taking place between the World Bank and the Brazilian authorities, with a view to rectifying past mistakes and devoting more resources to environmental and Amerindian protection.

Mr. Corbyn: If the programme is not changed, great damage will be done in that part of Brazil. The original programme involves the displacement of large numbers of Amerindian people by the most brutal methods possible —an issue that was raised by the delegation that came here and that went to see Barber Conable about it. I know that he received the delegation with sympathy. What protection will there be for those unfortunate people and for the environment in which they live?

Mr. Patten: I should welcome the opportunity to deal with that question on another occasion, when we are discussing the environment and development. On this occasion, we are dealing with IDA, and I cannot think offhand of a Latin American country that is borrowiing money from IDA. The hon. Gentleman's question therefore ranges a little wide of the subject of this debate.
I repeat that discussions are taking place between the World Bank and the Brazilian authorities and that they relate to the objectives to which I referred earlier.
I hope that I have replied reasonably adequately to the points that have been made in this short, late but welcome debate. Once again I have pleasure in commending the order to the House and, on behalf of the British taxpayer, spending another £520 million on a very good cause.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft International Development Association (Eighth Replenishment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

Dartmoor National Park

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not complain about the lateness of the hour, because at any time of the day or night I should be happy to raise the subject of the Dartmoor national park, for which I have a very great affection and which I have enjoyed walking and riding over for nearly a quarter of a century.
The Dartmoor national park was established in 1951 and is one of only 10 in Britain. It is designated, because of its exceptional beauty, to provide open-air recreation and relaxation, especially for town dwellers. Some 7·5 million people visited Dartmoor last year, which is almost as many as the population of London.
The Dartmoor national park measures 365 sq miles, about 200 sq miles of which is open moorland. Some 78 per cent. of that, which is the wildest country, the high moorland in the northern part of the moor, is out of bounds to the public when live firing by the Army takes place. Over three quarters of the wilderness area of northern Dartmoor is under military occupation for much of the year.
Okehampton range is used throughout the year day and night. There is remission at weekends, public holidays, Easter week and from 15 July to 15 September. At the Willsworthy range there is firing on one weekend a month, which means that there are not any clear weekends throughout the year and, 11 months of firing — only August is excepted—which prevents excursions by the public to the Tavy Cleave, one of the finest gorge valleys in the world. At Merrivale, there is no weekend firing and no firing in August. Willsworthy fires eastwards, Merrivale northwards and Okehampton in a southerly direction. The result is an impact zone in the heart of Dartmoor around Great Nesset and Great Nesset Head on the 17 to 1,800 contour.
The area from the Two Bridges crossroads northwards to Okehampton is a danger area for almost all the year, except in August. The three military live firing ranges are pointing inwards; the centre of the moor is the impact area and the danger zone.
The issues raised in the debate are national, not local. Although not all of Dartmoor is in my constituency, much of the open moor is. The issues transcend parish and parliamentary boundaries. This is a national park and it concerns the nation.
Besides live firing by the military, the Royal Air Force flies down to 200 ft, swooping over the moor, and that is increasing. That is not the case in August, but it is for the other 11 months of the year.
In the south of my constituency, the Royal Navy carries out dry training, blank firing pyrotechnics and uses helicopters. On Ringmoor, the Navy has admitted that, when it is hard at it, it is not a suitable place for a picnic. When the Army fires, not only is it noisy but large areas of the moor are out of bounds to the public. The scenery is spoilt by the flying of red flags and there are an increasing number of huts on the skyline, on the tors, as visible look-out posts. The moor is almost a training ground for the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. It cannot be consistent with the aims and purposes of the national parks.
There are those who suggest that I am anti the armed forces; they are mistaken. I have had close links with the Army, with which I worked undertaking courts martial when I was at the Bar, and I have a great admiration for the Navy. I have the Royal Naval college Dartmouth and HMS Cambridge in Wembury in my constituency, and my interests in aviation are well known, although limited to civil rather than military aviation. I wonder, however, how my hon. Friend the Minister equates the intention of the legislature, when setting up national parks, with the level of military activity in one of the 10 most beautiful and most protected areas of Britain.
Live firing is probably the principal culprit. It prevents the public from exercising their statutory right of access, decreed by Parliament through the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which I had the privilege to pilot through the House. That gave every person the statutory right of access. No other national park has given the public such a right. How does my hon. Friend the Minister reconcile that statutory right of access with the fact that every weekday, except in the autumn, the public may be prevented from having access to half the moor?
The military wishes to build a new training centre in the national park at Willsworthy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for arranging for me and other hon. Members to visit the Willsworthy camp in the most bitter of January weather, in dense fog and blinding rain. None the less, it gave us the opportunity to look at the problem of the Willsworthy camp. Fundamentally, I should like no live firing on the moor. If it is to continue, and bearing in mind that Willsworthy is owned by the Ministry of Defence, the proposed site of the new camp must be preferable to those dreadful Nissen huts, with the most appalling living conditions, currently on the skyline at Willsworthy.
Although that part of the moor is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), with whom I have discussed this matter, it seems to me that it would make better sense, if the military is to continue its activity on the moor, for the old camp to be demolished, the area regrassed and environmentally landscaped and the new camp built out of sight in the valley lower down from the high moor. That is not under discussion in this debate, but I felt that it was worth mentioning in passing.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, if the moor continues to be used extensively by our armed forces for training purposes, the aims of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 and the Dartmoor Commons Act must be frustrated and, if so, the status of the park should be reviewed? I am not sure whether one can denationalise national parks and declare them national training areas for the military, but it seems to make better sense that another area should be selected which does not suffer from such bombardment of live ammunition and military training.
Alternatively, although I recognise the need for the military to train, perhaps the training should be restricted to dry training, with live firing being moved elsewhere. The Sharp inquiry looked at the military presence of the Army. Although some good things came of it, one regrets that some of the principal recommendations have not been vigorously pursued and some aims have not been achieved.
In 1991, the Duchy of Cornwall lease for the Okehampton and Merrivale ranges expires — the live firing range in the northern part of the moor and the range

in the bottom half of the moor, just north of Princetown. Will this not be a wonderful opportunity for those two ranges to be transferred elsewhere? There are other moors in the south-west which are not national parks. Perhaps they should be looked at to determine whether some of the live firing and inconvenience can be moved outside the national park.
I hope also that the Duchy will enter practical arid meaningful discussions with the Government on that score and that they can come to some sensible and acceptable conclusions. Even if live firing cannot be moved lock, stock and barrel, it should be restricted, possibly to one range—the Willsworthy range is already owned by the Ministry of Defence—or to winter periods only, so that throughout the summer months, the public can enjoy what was established in the first place for their enjoyment and recreation.
Although this debate is not as well attended as one would like, and the Strangers Gallery is not as crowded as it was earlier, the future use of our national parks is of great importance. I am grateful that the Minister, in discussions I have had with him, has taken a more liberal and understanding line on the case that the environmentalists put forward, and realises that to discuss this matter at 2.40 am or over tea in the Tea Room is not an attack upon him or the Government or the work of the armed forces. It is part of a continuing discussion about the future role of the military in peacetime in areas of special beauty that have been decreed by Parliament as being for the enjoyment of the nation.
I believe that I have done some service by raising this issue tonight, and I ask the Minister to help, as far as he can, to reconcile the military's problems of finding adequate places in which to practise its work in the way that it should to equip it to defend the realm, with the needs of people in a mobile society—particularly town dwellers — who need and want to visit areas of great beauty in which to seek solitude and beauty for reviving their lives.
I am anxious that Dartmoor, one of the most beautiful parts of Britain, should not become a live firing range for the military for ever and I hope that the Minister will reassure the nation that the Government intend to reduce the amount of noise, live firing and military activity in an area prescribed by Parliament as being of special sanctity and beauty for the nation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the military use of Dartmoor national park. He has been a consistent and courteous champion of the national parks —especially of Dartmoor—and I hope that, at the end of this short debate, he will be convinced that his interests are compatible with those of the Ministry of Defence.
The services have been training on Dartmoor for more than 100 years. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Dartmoor national park did not come into being until 1951. As the House will recall, in the mid-1970s, Baroness Sharp conducted an inquiry, at the Government's request, into the use of Dartmoor for military training. In her report, published in 1977, Lady Sharp said:


I accept that military training and a national park are discordant, incongruous and inconsistent; but I cannot accept that they are incapable of living together.
Baroness Sharp had to recognise — as indeed successive Governments have done — that, important though the purposes of the national parks are, they are not paramount. They have to be balanced against other objectives of national policy. Defence is one such national requirement.
Why is Dartmoor in particular so important for military training? For historical and operational reasons, a large part of the Army is based in the south, and especially in the south-west, of England. That remains essential because of the requirement for forces to be near ports and airfields for their NATO role, and also as home defence. Nowadays, there are some 5,000 Royal Marines, 18,000 Regulars, 5,000 Territorial Army soldiers, and 12,000 cadets in that part of the south-western district who need facilities to train locally. The needs of the TA and cadets, whose training has to be done in the evenings, at weekends and at their annual camps, should not be overlooked. They must have a training area within easy reach, or their precious training time would be seriously eroded by the need to travel.
Apart from its location, Dartmoor offers ideal terrain for realistic and challenging training exercises, designed to make the soldier tough, fit and self-reliant, as we would all wish. It is isolated, has unpredictable weather, which can often be bad, and has few easily identifiable geographic features. They are essential features for good military training land.
Dartmoor is a large and sufficiently sparsely populated area to make live firing possible. The only other area in the south-west that offers comparable live firing facilities and is large enough to allow similar training is Salisbury plain. It is the Army's largest and most important area in the United Kingdom, but it is already used to full capacity.
As my hon. Friend said, we have three ranges on Dartmoor—Okehampton, Merrivale and Willsworthy—which together provide for live firing and "dry" training, that is, where no live ammunition is used. There is no use of tanks, tracked vehicles or heavy artillery on Dartmoor. Dry training is possible in at least one of the ranges on almost every day of the year. However, the amount of live firing conducted is kept within limits agreed between ourselves and the national park authority, but it tends to be affected by the vagaries of the weather.
Therefore, Dartmoor remains of the utmost importance as one of our principal training areas. That importance has, if anything, grown since the mid-1970s because of the larger numbers of Regular and TA forces now based in this country and because of the increased range requirements of modern weapons. Although it has been suggested over the years that training activities, particularly live firing, should be transferred elsewhere, I do not believe that there is any foreseeable prospect of this happening.
It is inconceivable that an area offering facilities comparable to Dartmoor would become available in south-west England, which is where such an area would be needed if the requirements for military training are to be met. A search was made before the decision was taken to modernise the Willsworthy ranges, but no suitable

alternative could be found. Lady Sharp's report accepted that there was no alternative area capable of meeting military needs in the south-west.
This Government, like their predecessors, therefore believe that national parks and military training must continue to co-exist. However, a heavy responsibility is placed on my Department to ensure that any conflict of interest between military and other activities in the national park—inevitably, there will be some conflicts—are reconciled to the greatest possible extent.
Although my first concern must be to ensure that the services can train effectively, I am also much aware of the need to make every possible provision for public access and to support measures aimed at conservation of this important part of our national heritage.

Mr. Steen: The Minister mentioned public access. No doubt he will deal with the Dartmoor Commons Act, which gave the statutory right of access. I feel somewhat embarrassed, having piloted that Act through the House, to say to the public, "For five days a week throughout the year, other than in August, you do not have that right." Does the Minister have a view on that matter?

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly deal with that.
It was with just such aims in mind that the Dartmoor steering group was set up in 1978, under independent chairmanship, with representatives from the bodies principally concerned—the national park committee, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. The group meets regularly and provides a forum for discussion on all such important questions. I should like to take this opportunity, as I am sure my hon. Friend would, to commend the group for its most valuable work.
The issues that challenge us in seeking solutions to the many problems that my hon. Friend alluded to are well illustrated in the case of Willsworthy camp. The need to improve conditions at Willsworthy camp has been of concern for many years. The camp was last refurbished in 1985, to make it weatherproof for a few more years, but the timber and corrugated iron structure — all that remains of a much larger camp that was put up before the last war — is now in need of more substantial improvement. Rather than meet our long-term requirements there, however, we wished to see whether we could offer the national park an opportunity for the camp to be moved to a less environmentally sensitive position. We looked closely at a number of alternatives, but none proved suitable until the site at Higher Beardon farm, Lydford, became available.
I was disappointed that the Dartmoor national park authority objected to our proposals to replace the camp at the alternative site. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's preference for the Higher Beardon site, although I appreciate that that represents the more acceptable of two alternatives and my hon. Friend may not have wished to make a choice in other circumstances.
This is not the time or place to argue the rights or wrongs of the national park authority's decision, since the planning process is not yet complete. We shall, of course, be considering how to proceed in the light of that decision. There are, however, a few points that I need to make now to clear up some misconceptions that seem to have arisen about the effect of our proposals.
One of the objections to the proposed development is that it would be visually intrusive in the national park. Our


proposal is, however, for a one-storey building, in local materials in keeping with its surroundings, set in a hollow off the high moor, where it can scarcely be seen. This would be far less visually intrusive than the existing camp, which is without doubt an eyesore. It can be seen for miles and its ugly appearance is a blot on the landscape.
We have, moreover, already made it clear that as part of our proposals the existing buildings would be demolished and the site restored to moorland. No matter what view one might take of the military use of Dartmoor, there can surely be no doubt that the environmental arguments are heavily in favour of replacement at Higher Beardon.
Concern has also been expressed that the proposals would amount to an entrenchment of the military presence on Dartmoor. From what I have already said, it should be clear that military use of Dartmoor will have to continue for the foreseeable future. The decision on Higher Beardon does not affect this one way or another, and if the camp is not replaced it will stay at Willsworthy. We would then need to carry out work to ensure that the camp was able to meet our future military requirements.
Another misapprehension is that we should withhold our proposals pending the outcome of the forthcoming review of licences for the use of the Duchy of Cornwall land. The use of Duchy land, however, has no bearing on the need for a training camp in the Willsworthy area; the firing ranges and proposed camp sites are on freehold land.
As I said earlier, we of course attach considerable importance to ensuring public access to the training areas. I must, however, put all this into perspective. In the first place, the MOD owns just 1·5 per cent. of the area covered by Dartmoor, farmed and unfarmed. We have on lease or licence a further 13 per cent. The ranges are closed to the public only when live firing is actually due to take place. No live firing, as my hon. Friend said, takes place on Dartmoor during the whole of August, on public holidays or, as far as possible, at weekends when visitors will most want to have access.
We try to ensure that information about open days is easily available to the general public. Nevertheless, we would of course be ready to consider any further ideas to improve the arrangements for public access. We would, for example, be ready to consider requests from organisations wanting to plan special events on Dartmoor and, if possible, to permit access by making adjustments to the firing programme.
My hon. Friend raised the possibility of realigning the range danger areas. That was considered in 1969. The national park committee concluded that the advantages of such a scheme were outweighed by the disadvantages of subjecting a common impact area to very intensive use. I would be prepared to reconsider the idea if the national park committee so wished. I should also like to renew the offer to grant increased public access to Tavy Cleave if the committee thought that that might be helpful. I am sure that national park committee members will read my hon. Friend's remarks and my reply with great care.

Mr. Steen: My point about Tavy Cleave is that the Ministry has been very helpful in stating that the public can have access to the cleave. However, it has said that there should be a little sentry box at each end to ensure that they do not wander down it when they should not. If we have little sentry boxes as well as flags flying on the tor, it will ruin Dartmoor.

Mr. Freeman: I will deal with that issue in the next few moments, because I had anticipated that my hon. Friend might raise the question of sentry huts.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the safety of ranges indirectly when he referred to flags. The Government and the services take the matter most seriously, not only from the point of view of public safety, but also with regard to all those training on the ranges. Every reasonable precaution is taken to guard against accidents to the public.
Byelaws are in force which control public access arid actions. When live firing is taking place, red warning flags are flown. The danger areas are delineated by red and white posts, and warning notices are also displayed on the areas where live firing takes place. Under the byelaws, flags have to be raised first thing in the morning of the day firing is to take place. However, they are removed as soon as possible after it is resolved riot to conduct firing. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall ask the Army authorities to continue to make every endeavour to ensure that the flags are not flying unnecessarily.
I believe that our safety arrangements are effective and as good as they can be, but our arrangements for public safety depend inevitably on the common sense of the public not to put themselves at risk. In the case of accidents involving civilians — I am glad to say that there has been only one on Dartmoor in the past 10 years and only three since the creation of the national park—these are regrettably often due to foolhardy actions in direct contravention of the byelaws. I intend to consider how best to apprise local schools and schoolchildren of the need to observe range byelaws.
My hon. Friend referred to huts. I think he meant what we describe as lookout posts required for the Willsworthy ranges and, by implication, for the other ranges. Both their siting and design were approved by the national park committee. I assure my hon. Friend that they are a necessary part of our range safety arrangements.
To sum up, I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of the Dartmoor training areas to the fighting efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces. I am always ready to consider any suggestions for ways in which military use and other national park interests can best be reconciled. In particular, we shall continue to ensure that essential military training is conducted in a way that takes full account of the needs of the national park. But this can be approached only in partnership. I am sure that all concerned recognise the importance of continuing close consultation and the need for some give and take on both sides.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.